HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.24.24 BOA Agenda PacketPLANNING and INSPECTIONS
Cy Stober, AICP, Director | cstober@orangecountync.gov | 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 | 919.245.2575
AGENDA
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (BOA)
WHITTED BUILDING
300 WEST TRYON STREET
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
Wednesday, July 24, 2024
7:00 p.m.
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
3.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 8, 2024 Meeting Minutes
4.PUBLIC CHARGE
The Board of Adjustment pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board
asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the
Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen
fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the
meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored,
the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public
charge is observed. All electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers
should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate.
The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial administrative body established in accordance
with the provisions of local regulations and State law to perform specified functions
essential to the County’s planning program. Action(s) taken by the board are based solely
on competent, substantial, and material evidence presented during a previously
scheduled and advertised public hearing on a specific item. As detailed within Section
2.12.2 of the UDO the Board chair reserves the right to exclude evidence and testimony
that is deemed: ‘incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious’ and therefore
fails to reasonably address the issues before the Board of Adjustment. While it should
be noted there is no time limit on the presentation of evidence, the Chair asks that the
presentation of evidence be consistent with established policies, rules of procedure, and
acceptable levels of decorum to ensure a fair and equitable hearing for all parties.
5.POTENTIAL BOA CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
It is the duty of every Board member to avoid both conflicts of interest and appearances
of conflict. Board members having any conflicts of interest or appearances of conflict with
respect to matters before the Board should identify the conflict or appearance of conflict
and refrain from undue participation in the matter involved.
As a reminder, NC General Statute § 160D-109 establishes the following standard: A
member of any board exercising quasi-judicial functions pursuant to this Chapter shall not
participate in or vote on any quasi-judicial matter in a manner that would violate affected
person’s constitutional rights to an impartial decision maker. Impermissible violations of
due process include, but are not limited to, a member having a fixed opinion prior to
hearing the matter that is not susceptible to change, undisclosed ex parte
communications, a close familial, business, or other associational relationship with an
affected person, or a financial interest in the outcome of the matter.
6.CASES:
A-3-24 – To review Special Use Permit (Case Number SUP24-0009)
request submitted by Childs Pace Properties, LLC proposing a
major modification to previously-approved Special Use Permit for
a care facility. The request is to allow for an increase in students
and employees at the existing day care facility. The site is
located on Orange County PIN 0801-13-1208, at 735 Erwin Drive,
Durham, within the Chapel Hill Township of Orange County.
BA24-0001 - To review a Variance (Case Number BA24-0001)
request submitted by Samuel Harrell. The applicant has applied
for a variance from the 150-foot reservoir buffer to allow for the
renovation and construction of an addition to the existing
nonconforming residential structure +/- 75 ft. from Lake Orange.
The site is located on Orange County PIN 9857-76-0674, at 4517
Eno Cemetery Road, Cedar Grove, within the Cedar Grove
Township of Orange County.
7.ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 2
REGULAR MEETING 3
May 8th, 2024 4
5
MEMBERS PRESENT: Leon Meyers, Chair, Member 6
Beth Bronson, Vice-chair, Member 7
Jeff Scott, Member 8
Nathan Robinson, Member 9
Greg Niemiroski, Member 10
Adam Beeman, Alternate (not needed) 11 12 MEMBERS EXCUSED: Holly Fraccaro, Alternate 13
14 LIST OF APPLICANTS: Eric Chupp, Capkov Ventures 15
Ben Kuhn, Ragsdale Liggett 16
Dan Jewell, Thomas & Hutton 17
Robert C. Chapman, 18
Jarvis Martin, Stewart, Martin & McCoy 19
Ed Holland 20
Gary Phillips 21
LeAnn Brown 22
Tony Whitaker, Civil Consultants Inc. 23 24 PUBLIC: Derrick Eads 25
Jean Forrest Brooks 26
Janet Borel 27
Maria L. Benitez 28
Cathy Williams 29
Elizabeth Jenkins 30
Jason Bullock 31
Keith A. Rissovo 32
Joe Kowen 33
Molly Boyle, Town of Hillsborough 34 35 STAFF PRESENT:Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director 36
Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director, Development Services 37
Taylor Perschau, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor 38
Ashley Moncado, Planner III 39
Lauren Coffey, Planner I 40
Jack Moran, Planning Technician 41
James Bryan, Staff Attorney 42 43 44 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 45
46
Leon Meyers called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 47
48
AGENDA ITEM 2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 49
50
No additions to the agenda. 51
52
53
1
DRAFT
1 AGENDA ITEM 4: PUBLIC CHARGE 2
3
Leon Meyers: Thank you. While Adam's getting settled, I'm going to read the public charge. Board of Adjustment 4
pledges its respect to the citizens of Orange County, and the Board asks citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, 5
courteous manner both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any 6
citizen fail to observe the public charge, I'll ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains 7
personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, I'll recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment 8
to the public charge can be observed. Please silence your electronic devices. The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-9
judicial administrative body established in accordance with local regulations and state law to perform specified functions 10
essential to the county's planning program. Actions taken by the Board are based solely on competent, substantial, and 11
material evidence presented during a previously scheduled and advertised public hearing. Welcome to tonight's public 12
hearing. As detailed within Section 2.12.2 of the UDO, of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Board chair reserves 13
the right to exclude evidence and testimony that is deemed incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, or duly repetitious, in 14
other words, not appropriate to the case. While it should be noted that there's no time limit on the presentation of 15
evidence, I ask that the presentation of evidence be consistent with established policies, rules of procedure, and 16
acceptable levels of decorum to ensure fair and equitable hearing for all parties. Regarding conflict of interest, it's the 17
duty of every Board member to avoid both conflicts of interest and appearances of conflict. Board members having any 18
conflicts of interest or appearances of conflict with respect to matters before the Board should identify the conflict or 19
appearance of conflict and refrain from undue participation in the matter involved. As a reminder, NC General Statute 20
160D-109 establishes the following standard. A member of the Board exercising quasi-judicial functions pursuant to 21
this chapter shall not participate in or vote on any quasi-judicial matter in a manner that would violate affected persons, 22
constitutional rights to an impartial decision maker, and permissible violations of due process include, but are not limited 23
to, a member having a fixed opinion prior to the hearing, undisclosed ex parte communications, meaning 24
communications that have happened outside the public hearing, a close familial business or other associational 25
relationship with an affected person, or a financial interest in the outcome of the matter that's the subject of the hearing, 26
and I will ask at this time if any Board members have conflicts that they need to make the Board aware of. 27
28
Nathan Robinson: None. 29
30
Leon Meyers: And I just mentioned it, because I've been in the building business, I know a number of the folks 31
involved in both cases tonight. I do not have a close familial business or other associational relationship with any of 32
those people, so I will be participating in the hearing. Okay, Case A124, Ms. Perschau, good evening. 33
34
AGENDA ITEM 5: CASES 35
A-1-24 To review a Special Use Permit request (Case Number36
SUP24-0005) submitted by Judea Reform Congregation Cemetery37
proposing to operate and expand the existing cemetery (PIN 9767-38
26-1613) on +/- 6.59 acres of a +/- 10.27 acres parcel located at 256039
Jones Ferry Road, and within the Chapel Hill Township of Orange40
County.41
42
Taylor Perschau: Good evening, Board. I'm going to take a minute before we jump into the case just to back up 43
a little bit and go over the review process that is involved for your sake, the Board, and for those in attendance at 44
tonight's hearing. For those that I haven't met, my name is Taylor Perschau. I'm the current planning and zoning 45
manager, and I will defer to you if you want me to go into more detail about their due process or less, please let me 46
know. We do have two special use permit applications before us tonight. The review process has extended beyond 47
this evening, so to start the review of a special use permit application, staff receives it, including an application site plan 48
and exhibit materials from the applicant. Staff determines the completeness of the application. Both of which cases 49
tonight have obviously been determined complete. After such acceptance, there is staff and inner agency review of the 50
2
materials, including development advisory committee review. That development advisory committee does include 1
planning, inspections, Fire Marshall, environmental health, NCDOT and likewise, other coordinating review agencies. 2
After the staff review, the items moved for a neighborhood information meeting as required by the UDO. This is a 3
meeting hosted by the applicant for area residents to be informed of the project and have the opportunity to be in 4
conversation with the applicant, and finally, tonight, we have arrived at the evidentiary hearing at which you all will make 5
a determination with findings of fact on the cases. Just simply to acknowledge, I'm not going to read through all of this 6
but as you've acknowledged Chair Meyers, there is both North Carolina State governing law and Orange County 7
Unified Development Ordinance standards that determine the process, the review process, and the standards upon 8
which the cases are to be reviewed and decided upon. Tonight, you all will be receiving evidence entered into the 9
record by staff and applicants and any other parties with legal standing. You will hear the testimony of those parties 10
noted. You will review evidence and all provided testimony, and finally, you'll move to deliberate and make a 11
determination whether that's approval or denial of the request. Important to acknowledge is the consideration of 12
standing as this is run as a quasi-judicial meeting. Anyone presenting to the Board must establish standing. The 13
following are ways in which someone might determine establish their standing. One would be a person with legal 14
interest in the subject property, the applicant themselves, the city or county governing the property. In this case, is of 15
course Orange County. Or it could be someone who will suffer special damages as a result of the decision of tonight's 16
meeting, and finally it would be an association organized to promote the interest of a particular area so long as at least 17
one member would have standing as an individual and the association was not created in response to the development 18
at issue. As you work through the proceedings tonight, anyone presenting to you must establish their legal standing. 19
They can then enter evidence into the record. You will first be hearing from staff on the materials reviewed and staff 20
testimony as to our analysis. Then we can move to hearing testimony from persons with legal standing and then the 21
Board will have opportunity for questions to anyone that presented or deliberation among yourselves and then finally, 22
again, it's that determination on the findings of fact. So with that, if you don't have any questions on process, I will hand 23
it over to Ashley Moncado for the first case. 24
25
Cy Stober: Mr. Chair, two items on is the need to swear in anyone who tends to speak on the matter. The other is 26
Ms. Bronson, the regular Board member is here now, so if Mr. Beeman, the alternate, at your pleasure wants to step 27
down, just want to offer the opportunity before we begin the hearing. 28
29
Leon Meyers: All right let's take a quick break here while Beth gets set up. Thank you, Adam for being here. 30
31
Adam Beeman: No problem. 32
33
Leon Meyers: Always. Anytime, I will ask anybody who intends to speak on the first Case A124, the cemetery matter, 34
to come forward to me to be sworn. 35
36
SWEARING OF THE TESTIMONY 37
38
Lauren Coffey: You swear and to order comes the testimony you're about to give is truth, the whole truth and nothing 39
but the truth to the best of your knowledge? 40
41
Applicants: I do. 42
43
Staff: I do. 44
45
Leon Meyers: Thank you folks. 46
47
Ashley Moncado: Good evening. Before we start, I just wanted to bring something to your attention really 48
quickly. There was arevised site plan sheets that were provided from the applicant just a couple days ago, and I 49
believe it's Sheet 3.1 and 8.1 and those have been placed at your seats for you this evening. As we go to tonight's 50
3
discussion, we will be referring to those cite plan sheets and those have been included in tonight's presentation for you 1
all. 2
3
Leon Meyers: Ashley, what's changed from this plan. 4
5
Ashley Moncado: So, the only difference was a minor, it was brought to our attention that landscape type buffer 6
B, was not identified, was not labeled on the cite plans that were provided in the packets. So that is the only change is 7
that the label is now there on those two sheets. Thank you. The special use permit application that's being presented 8
here tonight is to allow for the expansion and operation of a cemetery located at 2560 Jones Ferry Road. It's located in 9
the Chapel Hill Township, and it is identified with a red star there in the University Lake Protected Watershed. The 10
parcel is zoned as Rural Buffer, the UDO lists cemetery as a permitted use within the rural buffer general use zoning 11
district subject to the approval of a special use permit. Adjacent parcels are zoned as rural buffer and are undeveloped 12
or contained low intensity residential uses. This parcel is located in the rural buffer future land use and as well as 13
located in the joint planning area. As a result of that classification, it was submitted to the Town of Carrboro for their 14
review. We did not receive any comments. The existing cemetery was established originally in 1983 and contains 514 15
burial sites. The site contains existing ingress and egress connecting to Jones Ferry Road, a gravel driveway, shed 16
and well. Approximately 9.05 acres of the existing cemetery site is wooded. Due to the limited number of remaining 17
sites, the property owner and applicant is requesting to develop another portion of the property to continue cemetery 18
operations. The expansion will allow for 784 additional burial plots, including 348 lawn plots and 436 wooded plots. No 19
structures or utilities are being proposed as part of this request. The project meets buffer and landscape standards. In 20
addition, the project strives to protect and retain existing vegetation on the site consisting of mature forest and diverse 21
need of hardwoods and evergreens. Here, we have the site plan that was submitted by the applicant, and I'm just going 22
to kind of run through all those elements again, and point things out to you. The area identified for the special use 23
permit totals approximately 6.59 acres, so it's not the entire parcel, and you can see that's SUP area is identified here in 24
the solid black line. The remaining 3.68 acres contains the existing cemetery as well as this area over here to the east, 25
which is not part of this request. The proposed 784 burial plots are identified with the different rectangles. The white 26
are the new lawn plots, which total 348, and the green rectangles identified the new wooded plots which total 436 27
acres. All required setbacks are being met including 30-foot burial setback, which I know is probably hard to see and 28
might be easier for you to see with the site plans in front of you, but it is located along the perimeter of the property. 29
The 30-foot Type B landscape buffer is provided along Jones Ferry Road per Section 6.8.6 of the UDO. Minimum front 30
side and rear zoning district setbacks are being met. In addition, a hundred-foot stream buffer is being provided here at 31
the southern portion of the site where there's an existing stream. The project proposes an access view of the existing 32
driveway connecting to Jones Ferry Road. They will then expand the existing gravel drive through the site, up to the 33
north, looping back down and the entrance here to, I also like to note, is paved connecting to Jones Ferry Road. A 34
temporary driveway is being proposed to connect the Jones Ferry Road up here along the northern portion of the site 35
for construction equipment to access the site. Once the construction is complete, the temporary driveway is planned to 36
be removed and the area will be restored. The submitted application and evidence was reviewed by staff and was 37
determined to be complete based on Section 2.5 site plans, Section 2.7 Special Use Permits and Section 5.6.2 38
cemetery use standards. These are detailed in Attachment 2. Staff finds that the special use proposed will maintain or 39
promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, if located were proposed and developed and operated according 40
to the plan. Based on the materials provided, staff finds no potential injury to the value of property, and as documented 41
in Attachment 2, staff finds that the use will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located in compliance with 42
the plan for the physical development of the county as contained in the ordinance regulations and in the comprehensive 43
plan. Attachment 2, which is the staff report, includes a staff analysis detailing compliance and standards, compliance 44
with the standards contained in the UDO specifically related to 5.6.2 cemeteries, as well as Chapter 2 of the plan and 45
principles of the comprehensive plan. Based on Section 2.7.11 of the UDO, the BOA may impose such reasonable 46
conditions upon approval of the SUP and then here we have the conditions which have been submitted by staff. The 47
applicant shall obtain all necessary development permits from the county prior to any land disturbing activities 48
associated with the construction of the use. If any condition of this use is held invalid or void, then the special use 49
permit itself become invalid and void, and then the special use permit will automatically expire within 12 months from 50
4
the date of approval. At this time, I'm going to welcome the applicants up for them to introduce themselves and they 1
have a presentation for you as well. 2
3
Leon Meyers: Thank you. 4
5
Ashley Moncado: Thank you. 6
7
Leon Meyers: Welcome, Ms. Brown. 8
9
LeAnn Brown: Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is LeAnn Brown. I'm a local attorney and have been 10
doing zoning planning and land use work for 40 years now. I am here representing Judea Reform Congregation 11
Cemetery Corporation, the applicant in this matter. About 25 years ago, the State Board determined that it was the 12
best practice for in special use permit hearings because they're quasi-judicial for there to be a lawyer present in case 13
there was some issue that came up that the client needed representation. Engineers can present evidence to you, 14
which is what's getting ready to happen, but I'm here if that's needed, and so without further adieu, following the best 15
practice, I am here and that's about all I'm going to say to you. We have a team here that's going present to you, Tony 16
Whitaker, the president of Civil Consultants, who is a professional engineer will be speaking to you. I would like to 17
tender him as an expert. His credentials are included in your packet at Page 69 and would ask that you receive his 18
testimony as an expert witness. We also have here as part of our team, Gary Phillips, of River Street Realty. He has 19
provided a written report to you about maintaining or enhancing contiguous property, which I ask that you receive and 20
that you treat him as an expert as well. His credentials in report are on Pages 38 and 40, and then finally Ed Holland, 21
who is the director of the JRC Cemetery Corporation is here if we have applicant landowner-based questions, and 22
without further adieu, I will call Mr. Whitaker up to be your first witness. Thank you so much. 23
24
Tony Whitaker: Thank you so much members of the Board for your attention to this matter tonight and thanks to staff. 25
Staff has been great resource for us and putting together this application and tuning it correctly for your eyes tonight 26
I want to start tonight just by looking at three photos. These are photos of the existing cemetery, and they are beautiful. 27
These are shots or photos of the cemetery in different locations within, on the inside of the cemetery sort of looking 28
internally, and on the left, you see some lawn or grassed burial plots. Yes, they are burial plots. They don't have 29
headstones, but they are plots with flush mounted stones with ground and so to have those benches there with the 30
trees behind them and this is just a characteristic sort of snippet of how this cemetery feels when you're in there, when 31
you're sitting or standing or memorializing someone in that cemetery. On the right, the top photo, you begin to see 32
some of the driveways, the gravel driveways that are in there and that's characteristic of all the vehicular ways on the 33
site except for that one area of paving near the exit. Again, you see the character, the rural character, the scenic 34
beauty of the location. In that top right photo in the lower left part of that, if you sort of imagine your eyes going to the 35
background, you see actually wooded burial plots there in that photo. In the lower right, is a memorial garden that's in 36
there just located off of the gravel driveway area. Again, just to show you the rural character and also talk about how 37
this is in the rural context, it's in a rural setting, and it does have rural character and that's something that we want to 38
preserve and that's something that the comprehensive plan wants us to preserve as we do any kind of development in 39
this area. The point of showing you existing photos, even though we're not asking for approval of that part of the 40
cemetery tonight, is to say we want to continue the same thing throughout another part of this property. The same 41
style. The same character. The same look. The same kind of driveway and burial plots and with the same operator 42
and same operating protocols for the cemetery. It's been there for 40 years, safely and wonderfully doing its beautiful 43
thing as being a cultural resource in the community and we want that to be extended. As we performed our services for 44
this project, we either heard articulated clearly by the applicant or it was just in all of the conversation they gave to us, 45
these guiding principles that we were to use for our design services, and I won't read them all to you. You can read 46
them as well as I can but the thread here is to continue the same character, to do it responsibly, to do it in a low density 47
manner. A manner that's respectful of the vegetation and the wooded assets on the property, literally, the canape of 48
trees is gorgeous and to be respectful of the neighbors. The properties around this property to be sure we do no harm 49
to those properties in any kind of way because of what is happening on this property. To be a responsible neighbor and 50
5
to create more of this sacred place in all its natural beauty. I want to say that's it easy when you think about these 1
design principles and the site at large with its size and its location on a collector road and all the rural context and all the 2
things that make it what it is and the use, which is by nature, a low density, low impact kind of use. Those ingredients 3
come together to help us come to you tonight with a pretty easy application to make all the findings for we believe, and 4
we'll talk more about that, but these things all lead to the conclusion that it is harmonious with the neighborhood. It is 5
harmonious even with itself and it has been in the neighborhood, part of the neighborhood for 40 years. It is consistent 6
with the comprehensive plan, the land use part of the comprehensive plan that talks about how areas in this county 7
should be developed by respecting and preserving cultural resources, natural resources, being protective of the 8
watershed, the protected watershed that this property lies within and to do all of that in a low-density manner. Clearly 9
there's compliance there, and the fact that the property has a proven record for 40 years of safe operation being an 10
asset to the neighborhood and to the community at large, speaks to its safety and public health and public welfare 11
aspects, and it is in the public interest, of course, to have an organized and systematic place for final disposition and for 12
memorial. It's in the public interest for that to happen and for that to happen safely and systematically. These things 13
I've spoken to all these things allow me to speak to all three of those general findings that you need to make to approve 14
this application, and I have done so lightly here but in your record, in the packets you have, is more rigorously treated 15
for these three findings and I trust that you've read those, and if you have any questions about that, I'll be happy to 16
answer. I do want to present this line, now don't worry I'm not going to read this or ask you to read it, but I show this as 17
the first sheet in our plan set that you have in your packet, on the left hand side that I've highlighted in yellow, is just a 18
listing of all the ways, all the areas in the UDO that apply to this project and how this project complies or will comply with 19
those parameters. We don't have to talk about that more. It's in your record. If you have questions, I'll be happy to 20
answer any questions about that, and then finally, I just want to show this image of the property. The property's 21
bounded in a thick black border. It's shown, at least on my screen, there's a little bit of a greenish tint to the whole 22
property because it is 90 percent wooded. It presents itself aerially as just a green mass with the exception of the few 23
cleared areas. It's about 90 percent wooded, and the staff did a great job of short of indicating the existing features of 24
this site and there's Jones Ferry Road to the north heading in a northeasterly direction about 600 feet of road frontage. 25
There's about 200 hundred feet of road frontage on the far-right side there on the Damascus Church Road. That 26
there's no access or anything. That just happens to be road frontage, and the property's about 10.2 acres. Again, 27
about 1 acre of that is cleared currently for driveway and lawn burial plots. I wanted to just point out as staff did that the 28
driveway coming, which is the western most drive that leads you in, if you were to drive in, you would circulate in a 29
counterclockwise manner around through the existing burial plots and then you could exit through the right most 30
driveway. We are proposing to change none of that. All of that will remain as is. No modifications needed. DOT has 31
told us that that's already a safe condition in their opinion, and the roadway and access is safe and they don't need any 32
additional improvements. We are proposing the new driveway indicated in gray that meanders through the woods and 33
culminates in this loop and comes back, and that's for the purpose of not having any three-point turns required for any 34
kind of passengers, vehicles or equipment that might come into the site. That you can just circulate easily with a nice 35
generous turning radius there that the, any kind of vehicle that would likely be in this property could use and could 36
access through and those include passenger vehicles, trucks with trailers pulling maintenance equipment or burial 37
equipment, funeral vehicles or even fire trucks and ambulances. A mid-sized fire truck can maneuver around this 38
driveway safely and without tracking off the gravel edges that we show. There's a stream buffer on the property at the 39
southern edge. There's a short section of intermittent stream on the property and the buffer is associated with that. 40
We're not proposing any disturbance in that buffer. Keeping all the clearing and grading light as though it is, keeping it 41
out of that area, and finally, I would just say that pulling out the color patches that you see. The darker green are the 42
wooded plots sort of areas where wooded plots will be. That's the predominant type of plot that the applicant wants. 43
Given current requests by users of the cemetery. The wooded ones seem to be a little more preferred, but the grass 44
plots are popular as well, and the lighter green would be ones that would be indicated or that we have identified as the 45
best place for grass plots because of landscape position and slopes and so forth. So, there you have it. I won't talk 46
anymore except to say that the findings that you need to make tonight, in order to approve this application, we believe, I 47
believe in my opinion based on a lot of research and looking into the different aspects of this property and this project, 48
that you can make those findings. That you have the evidence that you need in the record to make those findings and I 49
am happy to answer any questions if you have them. 50
6
1
Leon Meyers: Board members, any questions for Mr. Whitaker? The four conditions that are listed in the agenda 2
package are the conditions that you're proposing. Is that right? 3
4
Tony Whitaker: We do agree, yes. We agree with those conditions. We've read them and are in agreement with all of 5
those conditions. 6
7
LeAnn Brown: Chair Meyers, in the interest of time this evening, since you have a full written report from Mr. Phillips in 8
the record, I ask simply that you receive into your record the agenda packet that you have and the evidence that's 9
there. If there are questions of Mr. Phillips, he's here; but otherwise, you have his report and I believe it's sufficient to 10
support the third finding you need to make about value. 11
12
Leon Meyers: Board members, any questions for Mr. Phillips regarding the important matter of maintaining property 13
values? 14
15
Beth Bronson: Maintaining property values? 16
17
Leon Meyers: Right. Is that right? 18
19
LeAnn Brown: That's right. His report simply supports, and the staff has indicated that they've determined as well that 20
the project as proposed maintains or enhances the value of contiguous property. It's just simply a continuation of the 21
use that's there. It's just one of the findings you have to make and so we wanted you to have evidence that you could 22
rely upon. 23
24
Beth Bronson: And he, will he remain present for questions later or? 25
26
LeAnn Brown: He is here for questions, if you have any whatsoever, and he's here to testify if you need him, but we 27
didn't want to take more time than necessary cause you have more than one thing to do tonight. 28
29
Leon Meyers: Board members, would you like to hear from Mr. Phillips? His report in the package is pretty 30
comprehensive but Board members may prefer to hear from him. I don't know. Thoughts? 31
32
Nathan Robinson: I read it and I am fine with it. 33
34
Leon Meyers: Good, all right. 35
36
LeAnn Brown: Otherwise, we believe the evidence that you have before you including the evidence in your packet is 37
sufficient for you to make a decision and unless you have questions of us or there's something we need to talk about, if 38
the members of the public do speak, we believe you have the evidence you need to make your decision and we thank 39
you. 40
41
Leon Meyers: Thank you. Ms. Brown, I don't believe anybody has signed up to speak to this case. Is there anybody 42
in the room who would like to speak to the A-1-24 case? Ashley? 43
44
Ashley Moncado: I don’t believe anybody signed up, no. 45
46
Leon Meyers: And Board members unless they're questions for the applicant, then the matter would be before the 47
Board. Questions or concerns or anything we should discuss before we try to handle findings? 48
49
Beth Bronson: Not as of right now. So, the applicant presentation is complete, is that what you're saying? 50
7
1
Leon Meyers: It is. 2
3
Beth Bronson: The only question I guess I have is who is maintaining the property now for the wooded lots and would 4
that continue as far as just maintaining the property? 5
6
Leon Meyers: Ms. Brown, can you answer that or is there someone from your team who can? 7
8
LeAnn Brown: I can answer it and if I don't do it right, Mr. Holland will correct me. The property, the cemetery, that's 9
there it's been there for 40 years. It's managed by the owner of the property and will continue to be managed in the 10
same way that it has been for the last 40 years. That is the purpose of that entities work to manage the cemetery. 11
12
Beth Bronson: I guess as far as tree management and as an arborist, do you have a contractor that you work with 13
already to maintain the property? 14
15
LeAnn Brown: They do. They do all of that. They handle a full set maintenance schedule to keep the property as it 16
looks today and will continue to do that. 17
18
Beth Bronson So that is done in house is what I'm, I guess I'm getting at? 19
20
LeAnn Brown: The corporation handles the work. It hires whomever it needs to do the work on a routine basis. 21
22
Beth Bronson: Okay. Thank you. 23
24
Leon Meyers: Any other questions? I'm looking for the findings that are as part of the package here. I believe they 25
start on Page 123, is that right? A motion would be in order to approve these findings. 26
27
Nathan Robinson: I make a motion to approve the findings as listed starting at Page 123. 28
29
Leon Meyers: Do I hear a second? 30
31
Greg Niemiroski: Second. 32
33
Leon Meyers: All right. Any discussion on approval of the findings? All in favor please say I. 34
35
MOTION was made by Nathan Robinson. Seconded by Greg Niemiroski. 36
VOTE: Unanimous. 37
38
Leon Meyers: None opposed. Findings are approved and the next motion I believe would be to issue the special 39
permit. Is that right, James? 40
41
James Bryan: I need the conclusions on, mine is 132, Page 132. 42
43
Leon Meyers: 130 or 132 are findings? 44
45
James Bryan: So, you've done the findings. You need the conclusions. Which id attachment 6C in the PDF. 46
47
Leon Meyers: Do I hear a motion to approve the conclusions listed beginning on Page 132 of the agenda package? 48
49
Nathan Robinson: I make a motion to approve the conclusions as listed on Page 132 of the package. And 133. 50
8
1
Jeff Scott: Second. 2
3
Leon Meyers: And any discussion on conclusions? All in favor, please say aye. 4
5
MOTION was made by Nathan Robinson. Seconded by Jeff Scott. 6
VOTE: Unanimous. 7
8
Leon Meyers: None opposed, and now we're ready for a motion to issue the special use permit. 9
10
James Bryan: With the conditions. 11
12
Leon Meyers: With the four conditions listed in the package. Do I hear a motion to issue the special use permit? 13
14
Nathan Robinson: I make a motion to issue the special use permit. 15
16
Jeff Scott: Second. 17
18
Leon Meyers: Any discussion on the motion to issue the permit? All in favor, please say aye. 19
20
MOTION was made by Nathan Robinson. Seconded by Jeff Scott. 21
VOTE: Unanimous. 22
23
Leon Meyers: None opposed. Permit is issued and thank you folks. Good luck with your project. 24
25
LeAnn Brown: Thank you. 26
27
AGENDA ITEM 5 Continued: CASES 28
A-2-24 – To review Special Use Permit (Case Number 29
SUP24-0006) request submitted by Capkov Ventures, Inc. 30
proposing a major modification to previously-approved 31
Special Use Permits for Woodsedge and The Woods 32
Planned Development Housing communities (originally 33
approved in 1985 and later modified in 1991). The request is 34
to modify two SUP conditions regarding conditions of 35
ownership and the location of Common Open Space. The 36
site is located on Orange County PINs 9873-41-0172 and 37
9872-49-0872, located south of Phoebe Drive and north of 38
East Scarlett Mountain Road, and within the Hillsborough 39
and Chapel Hill Townships of Orange County. 40
41
Leon Meyers: Mr. Stober, is it appropriate to handle standing of prospective witnesses before the applicant's 42
presentation, after the staff presentation, do you have an opinion about that? 43
44
Cy Stober: I don't have a strong opinion. I think it would be appropriate to address it prior to swearing in anyone 45
who would offer, who would wish to speak. 46
47
Leon Meyers: Good, then let's hear it from Taylor and then we'll handle standing for the two folks who have signed up 48
to speak. 49
50
9
Taylor Perschau: Okay. Very good. I'm here to present on Case A2 - 1
2
Leon Meyers: Time out, Taylor, I missed an important piece of this case. Which is to do the potential conflict and I'll 3
read this again for folks who may have come in, into the room. It's the duty of every Board member to avoid both 4
conflicts of interest and appearances of conflict. Board members have any conflicts or appearances of conflict with 5
respect to matters before the Board, should identify the conflict or appearance of conflict and refrain from undue 6
participation in the matter involved. As a reminder, General Statues 160D-109, establishes the following standard a 7
member of the Board exercising quasi-judicial function pursuant to this chapter shall not participate in or vote on in a 8
quasi-judicial matter. In a matter that would violate affected persons constitutional rights to an impartial decision maker. 9
In permissible violations of due process include, but are not limited to, a member having a fixed opinion prior to hearing 10
the matter, that is not susceptible to change undisclosed ex parte meaning outside the hearing communications, a close 11
familial business or other associational relationship with an affected person or a financial interest in the outcome of the 12
matter, and I'll ask board members again for the purposes of this case, does anybody have a conflict that needs to be 13
announced? No? Good. Sorry Taylor. 14
15
Taylor Perschau: So, before my presentation, I do want to clarify whether or not you wanted to ask for the 16
swearing in because my presentation is my testimony. 17
18
Leon Meyers: You have been sworn, right? 19
20
Taylor Perschau: I have been sworn but it was specific to the first case. I don't know if that's acceptable to 21
consider for this one. James? 22
23
Leon Meyers: James, are you comfortable with that? 24
25
James Bryan: Yes. 26
27
Leon Meyers: Thank you for asking. 28
29
Taylor Perschau: I am here to present staff testimony on Case A224, which is a special use permit major 30
modification request, meaning there is an existing special use permit applied to the property in question. In this case, it 31
is a property south of Phoebe Drive north of East Scarlett Mountain Road and is boundaried to the west by I-40; to the 32
east by NC-86. There are two parcels on which these permits apply, and the applicant tonight is Capkov Ventures 33
brought forth by Eric Chupp. Similar to the case you just saw, you will find in your staff packet a summary of their 34
request and the case abstract. The application materials in full. A staff report, some of which I will be addressing in my 35
presentation. Documentation of the neighborhood information meeting materials as well as the Board of Adjustment 36
notification materials. Project correspondence including development advisory committee comments and finally the 37
findings of fact. So as noted, this is two separate parcels north and south of each other. South of Phoebe Drive and 38
north of East Scarlett Mountain Road. I know it's somewhat difficult to see where we are here, but the red star is the 39
subject property. We are south of the Town of Hillsborough, north of Chapel Hill. We do ride the lines of two Orange 40
County Townships. To the north is the Hillsborough Township. To the south is the Chapel Hill Township, and the 41
property is also divided by a watershed line. Some of the property is within the lower Eno unprotected watershed and 42
the remainder, is within the Jordan Lake unprotected. Current zoning on the property is rural residential, and the 43
request tonight is for the special use permit that lives on top of that rural route residential zoning so there's no proposed 44
change to the zoning, but instead two specific requests for conditions to be modified. One condition being to remove 45
the requirement for unitary ownership that is currently applied to the planned development that's onsite. Today, it would 46
be reviewed as a home park, but the 1985 and 1991 permits were specifically detailed as planned development 47
housing. The second condition that the applicant is hoping to modify is the relocation of the 25 acres of open space 48
that were allocated as part of the 1991 modification. Of note, there was also open space in the 1985 permit and then 49
the 1991, moved the location of that so this is a second request to move that open space. The surrounding zoning, 50
10
you'll find to the north, is zoning within the Town of Hillsborough. There's also economic development Hillsborough up 1
here to the northeast. There's rural residential in the yellow to the east and then we have rural buffer denoted by the 2
green to the south. Future land use map designations for the property is the rural residential, which is in the yellow, and 3
then the small curved portion on the southern side, is designated rural buffer. So again, there's two very specific 4
requests for you all to review tonight. It is the addressing whether unitary ownership should remain as a requirement 5
for the special use permit and also the request to relocate the open space. There's no proposed change to the 6
approved use, which again, is the plan development housing as it was worded in the original permit. If a similar project 7
were to come before us today, it would be designated as a home park use. The use standards of which are found in 8
Section 5.5.5, but because there's no change of use here, those standards do need to be addressed. So, this how the 9
property stands today. We have the mobile home park and its housing units on the northern portion and then the 10
southern portion is, and I know you can't see super well here, but it is hashed out and all of this southern L shape is the 11
designated 25 acres of open space. As part of an application for a major modification, the applicant is required to 12
submit an amended site plan and a written narrative detailing what they're requesting to modify. Before you is the 13
amended site plan in which you can see how they're proposing to redistribute the open space with the bright green 14
being the newly proposed location. So here, it's just the southern portion and the proposal is to redistribute it in a way 15
that still protects streams and stream buffers as would be required, as is required by open space allocations in today's 16
current UDO standards. They're also proposing to retain the southern portion that is within that rural buffer designation 17
as part of their open space and then you will also find along the western portion a 100-foot-wide buffer, which is 18
alignment with the current standards for our major transportation corridor overlay, which requires that 100-foot buffer. 19
Similarly, there's a 100 foot buffer applied along East Scarlett Mountain Road and just to the north. Staff analysis 20
determined that the submitted application was complete by way of Section 2.7 what's required for a Special Use Permit 21
and then also by UDO Section 5.3.2, which are the application of use standards specific to special uses. We found that 22
the material evidence submitted did support the UDO submittal requirements in Section 2.2 for applications and Section 23
2.7.14, which details what's required for modifications to approved plans. Further, we found that the proposed 24
modifications will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare if located where proposed and 25
developed and operated according to the plan. This is supported by the applicant's submitted site plan. The analysis is 26
detailed in Attachment 2 in the staff report as well as staff comments found in Attachment 5. Based on the materials 27
provided, staff finds no potential injury to the value of contiguous property, and we further find that the use will be in 28
harmony with the area in which it is to be located. This is based on the fact that the modification proposes no change of 29
use but the change to unitary ownership and the common open space location. I will now turn it over to the applicant. 30
I'm going to pull up their presentation to present their own case. 31
32
Leon Meyers: Let's take a little pause there and let’s see if the Board has any questions for you, Taylor. 33
34
Beth Bronson: I only have one question about the open space. Is there a text amendment going to the Board of 35
Commissioners regarding open space requirements and what it includes, do you know? 36
37
Cy Stober: So, the planning board reviewed a draft landscaping ordinance based on the planning board's 38
feedback and further, or rather it was the ordinance review committee- 39
40
Beth Bronson: Okay, so it has not gone to – 41
42
Cy Stober: No, it's still being drafted in consultation with the attorney's office to make sure that it meets the needs 43
for enforcement and administration, but we're anticipating it proceeding this summer. 44
45
Beth Bronson: Okay, thank you very much. 46
47
Leon Meyers: Just a question about what is required related to the nature of open space at the time these two 48
applications were approved? 49
50
11
Taylor Perschau: I'm not sure that I can actually answer that. 1
2
Leon Meyers: I asked the question just to try to get to intent of the previous approvals. 3
4
Taylor Perschau: Do you have an answer for this? 5
6
Cy Stober: I'm not comfortable answering the question. I don't know. 7
8
Leon Meyers: Anything else, Board? Thank you. I'll let you go this time, and at this time, before the applicant 9
presents, two people from the public have signed up to speak and I want to talk just a little bit about the nature of 10
standing that Taylor covered it at the beginning of the hearing. The county attorney's office and the Board have 11
determined that folks who want to present evidence in the quasi-judicial hearing like this, need to demonstrate standing. 12
Standing is, I'll try to be graceful here, a legal term that is not at all straightforward in my opinion. Some members will 13
disagree with me, but essentially in order to demonstrate standing, a prospective speaker at tonight's hearing will need 14
to show a change in the property value, a potential impact to property value, and there are some other nuances that it 15
could qualify as well. I'm going to ask the two folks who have signed up to come forward with that preface and talk to 16
us not about, I'm not asking you to give your testimony at this time. What I would like for you to speak to is how you 17
believe you qualify as a witness with standing for the matter that's before the Board, and I believe Mr. Eads signed up 18
first. 19
20
Cy Stober: And Mr. Chair, just a reminder, the only individuals who have been sworn for this hearing are the 21
county staff. 22
23
Leon Meyers: Okay, then let me ask at this time, just for the two prospective witnesses to be sworn and then we'll 24
catch everybody else when we get that out of the way. I'm sorry, I don't mean to say it that way. When that part is 25
finished. 26
27
SWEARING OF THE TESTIMONY 28
29
Lauren Coffey: You swear and/or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing 30
but the truth to the best of your knowledge? 31
32
Public: I do. 33
34
Leon Meyers: Thank you, folks. Mr. Eads. 35
36
Derrick Eads: All right, I don't know specifically how this would affect the value of my home. I do know (1) this 37
property's already been sold. The special use permit has already been violated. The maintaining unity of ownership 38
went away apparently in 2019. I don't know why that wasn't corrected, but I do know when I bought my property, I was 39
aware of this. I do believe the other neighbors on my road were aware of this, and the owner of the mobile home park 40
was supposed to maintain unity of ownership. I'm thinking in my mind when I purchased the property, they're going to 41
be changes. Nothing stays the same. This is county land. Minimum at the time I bought my home, was a 2-acre lot. I 42
don't know what it is now. Is it a 2-acre lot in the county? 43
44
Leon Meyers: Mr. Eads, I'm going to ask you to direct your comments at how you qualify as a witness with standing 45
for the purpose the matter before the Board. That would be if you believe is this special use permit were approved, it 46
would have a negative impact on your property value. If you have some expertise in establishing real property values. 47
Then that's what you would need to show us in order to qualify for standing. 48
49
12
Derrick Eads: The problem would be, is there would be no feathering or property density to the rural buffer line? The 1
rural buffer line comes right up East Scarlett Mountain Road. It dips into this property a little. There would be, the 2
proposed development after that, I know that it's a town meeting, but there is a permit on file for a 450-unit apartment 3
complex to go in, 205 town homes, shops, what that may be, I don't know, restaurant, daycare, bus line. You are going 4
to go from the woods right next to a rural buffer line, which I am in, to just a sea of parking lot and people and buildings. 5
There will go population density, I believe will just negatively affect all of the neighbors on East Scarlett Mountain Road. 6
Is that adequate? 7
8
Leon Meyers: I understand and Mr. Eads, do you have any qualifications as a person who is trained and is 9
experienced in establishing real property values? 10
11
Derrick Eads: I do not. 12
13
Leon Meyers: And could you show us that evidence please. 14
15
Derrick Eads: I would have to hire an attorney. 16
17
Leon Meyers: Right, or a real property appraiser unless you have expertise yourself. 18
19
Derrick Eads: Okay, I do not and I will have to hire those and I do plan on that. I understand that you will probably 20
vote tonight. I do have some other questions, if that is, if that's okay for the Board. 21
22
Leon Meyers: Well, the first thing that we have to deal with right now is determining whether you have standing or not 23
so that you could offer testimony, and I'm sorry, it's a complicated process but that's what they tell us we have to go 24
through with. So, I will ask the Board if any board members have questions for Mr. Eads and, if not, the motion 25
regarding Mr. Eads' status as a witness withstanding would be in order. 26
27
Ben Kuhn: For the record, we just object to this testimony withstanding if he is not status standing sufficient to be 28
testifying just for the record. 29
30
Leon Meyers: Noted. Thank you. 31
32
Beth Bronson: So, in establishing standing as we're saying is that there is certain criteria you have to meet about how 33
your, if you're using one of those four tenants to claim standing, which is from what I'm gathering about your comments 34
so far, is about effecting your property value or effecting the neighborhood, and the welfare of the surrounding 35
community. Now, do you have standing means that we could viably listen to your testimony and include it as evidence 36
as we look at this case? 37
38
Derrck Eads: I do not have specific numbers. I know it will affect the roads. I know that road surveys were supposed 39
to have been done. I know it will affect the schools. I know it's going to affect infrastructure. 40
41
Beth Bronson: Now is your property, how many, yeah, I guess I would say - 42
43
Derrick Eads: I'm within 500 feet of this and was notified by the county. 44
45
Beth Bronson: So, your property is not actually adjacent to a property- 46
47
Leon Meyers: Stick on the standing matter. 48
49
13
Beth Bronson: This, I mean from my perspective, this would be trying to determine standing. If this is inappropriate, 1
please let me know. I'm just trying to help establish standing, right? 2
3
Leon Meyers: Right. It sounds like Mr. Eads' testimony would be regarding the value of his property and the impact of 4
this potential SUP on his property value and Mr. Eads has told us that he does not have the expertise to testify 5
regarding property values. If you have questions regarding standing, then those would be appropriate. Otherwise, 6
Board members, if there are no other questions, a motion would be in order to determine standing for Mr. Eads. 7
8
Derrick Eads: So, nothing will be entered in that I've said. Is that correct? 9
10
Leon Meyers: Well, it depends on what happens if there's a motion regarding your standing. The Board's first duty 11
here is to determine whether a prospective witness has standing before we hear that witness's testimony. 12
13
Derrick Eads: Okay, and then can, may I ask questions of you, the Board members? 14
15
Leon Meyers: If the Board determines that you have standing, you would be entitled to ask those questions. Yes. 16
17
Derrick Eads: Okay, pertaining to possible conflicts of interest? 18
19
Leon Meyers: Yes, if the Board determines you have standing. 20
21
Derrick Eads: Okay, all right, so I'm done. 22
23
Beth Bronson: No, we still need to make a motion determining your standing, and I think the difference is that I would 24
feel more confident to make a motion if we knew more about the person's ask for standing situation. 25
26
Leon Meyers: I'm sorry I didn't understand. 27
28
Beth Bronson: The situation of what would actually define expertise. It's up to us to determine expertise and so by 29
asking if you have any adjacent property lines with the applicant's property, I feel might give waivers as if you lived a 30
quarter mile down the road or on the other side of town. In the perspective of establishing standing. 31
32
Leon Meyers: But establishing standing relates in almost all cases to special damages, which comes down to 33
property values essentially. And in order to testify about property values, we would need a witness who has a 34
background in property values. 35
36
Beth Bronson: Okay. I understand. 37
38
Leon Meyers: Board members, motion regarding Mr. Eads' standing please. 39
40
Beth Bronson: Based on the explanation, I would make a motion that he does not have standing. 41
42
Nathan Robinson: Are there any special damages that you could substantiate? 43
44
Leon Meyers: We got a motion on the floor that needs a second. 45
46
Jeff Scott: Second. 47
48
Nathan Robinson: My question is, you know, one of the conditions of standing is, are there special damages that 49
you could substantiate that you would incur? 50
14
1
Derrick Eads: I would imagine, again, I cannot put a dollar amount to this, but I would imagine the appeal of owning a 2
larger piece of land next to the proposed development, cause the next step after this SUP, the next step here is going 3
to the town to be annexed this property. 4
5
Leon Meyers: Nathan, did that give you the information that you need? 6
7
Nathan Robinson: Yeah. 8
9
Leon Meyers: Okay. Any discussion on the motion and the motion again is to deny standing Mr. Eads as the witness, 10
is that right? 11
12
Beth Bronson: Well now again, I mean, without being able to ask questions, you know, of the questioner. 13
14
Leon Meyers: Witnesses with standing are entitled to ask questions of the applicant and the Board. 15
16
Beth Bronson: To determine if a witness has a standing, I feel like you would have to ask the witness about 17
information that they would have, that they would be an expert in or that they would be considered to have standing in. 18
19
Leon Meyers: Well, I thought, thought I asked Mr. Eads about his background to establishing property, right? 20
21
Ben Kuhn: Yeah, I think it's the witness's prerogative to come up and establish stating that he had come forward 22
and he asked for that his testimony on the issues of special damages. But he's stating so far, it sounds like generalized 23
fear and speculation about what might happen in the future, if something happens down the road. 24
25
Leon Meyers: Right, well I don't know that I would characterize it exactly that way. 26
27
Ben Kuhn: We will continue to object. 28
29
Leon Meyers: Understand, good. All right, any other discussion on the motion to deny standing for this witness? All 30
in favor, please say aye. 31
32
MOTION made by Beth Bronson. Seconded by Jeff Scott. 33 VOTE: Unanimous. 34
35
Leon Meyers: Any opposed? None opposed. Mr. Eads, thank you for being here. I'm sorry we can't hear your 36
testimony. Ms. Brooks? 37
38
Jean Forrest Brooks: Yes. I'm Jean Forrest Brooks, born in Orange County and raised in Orange County, taught 39
school here. 40
41
Leon Meyers: Ms. Brooks, before you begin, excuse me for interrupting already, I'm going to ask you to keep your 42
comments at this part of the hearing directed specifically toward how you maybe entitled to standing as a witness in this 43
case. Thank you. Please go ahead. 44
45
Jean Forrest Brooks: Okay. My husband was an attorney and in the legislature for a couple of terms and 30 years 46
ago he started this file on that piece of property. When it was sold a couple of years ago, we noticed, I noticed it was 47
sold. I went to the county, called the county, and told them about the history and how it was documented that that piece 48
of land was never to be developed. They in turn went back to their records and said yes, I was right. That's where we 49
are now and people asking for it to be not so. 50
15
1
Leon Meyers: And Ms. Brooks, in order to demonstrate standing, you would need to show that you might suffer 2
special damages as that term is defined in the statute, if this special use permit were approved. Can you tell us how 3
you would suffer special damages, please? 4
5
Jean Forrest Brooks: My land is adjacent. I have 22 acres which runs up East Scarlett Mountain Road, so it borders 6
the piece of property that Roger Dale was supposed to have kept in and included when he used 50, when he did his 7
trailer park. It was supposed to be that he used his allotment for that and the rest of it was supposed to be open space. 8
My property is worth like $35,000 an acre. 9
10
Leon Meyers: I'm sorry for interrupting, do you have background in establishing real property values? 11
12
Jean Forrest Brooks: – no, I do not but I – 13
14
Ben Kuhn: Objection, to her testifying. 15
16
Leon Meyers: I understand. 17
18
Jean Forrest Brooks: You never let me finish that I had proof. Do you want to object to that? I'm sorry, this whole 19
process is just really – 20
21
Leon Meyers: It's very complicated. 22
23
Jean Forrest Brooks: It’s very unfair. It really is. 24
25
Leon Meyers: Very complicated and confusing and I'm sorry. It's as difficult for the Board as it is for you. I'm sure. 26
27
Jean Forrest Brooks: I'm sure. I did have someone coming out because if this development goes in, I will be selling 28
our property and he did tell me when I had to – 29
30
Ben Kuhn: Objection. 31
32
Leon Meyers: Ms. Brooks, I'm going to have to ask you to – 33
34
Jean Forrest Brooks: – he keeps interrupting me and I'm trying to tell you that the guy did tell me about the value of 35
my land. I do not have anything written. 36
37
Leon Meyers: That would be hearsay for the purpose of this hearing. So, thank you for being here. I wish we could 38
hear your testimony. 39
40
Beth Bronson: Do we need to make a motion? 41
42
Leon Meyers: Well, it looks to me like Ms. Brooks has decided not to speak. 43
44
Jean Forrest Brooks: You said that I was not qualified. 45
46
Leon Meyers: What I meant to do was to ask you to demonstrate how you would prove special damages given that I 47
believe you said you don't have any background in establishing real property values? 48
49
Jean Forrest Brooks: No, but I did hire a realtor to come out and he said with the development- 50
16
1
Leon Meyers: Let me stop you there. I'm sorry. Reporting what somebody said to you outside the hearing is 2
hearsay. 3
4
Jean Forrest Brooks: I don't want to frustrate you anymore than I did. 5
6
Leon Meyers: Okay. Thank you. Could I ask everybody who is going to testify in this case to come forward to me to 7
be sworn, please. 8
9 SWEARING OF THE TESTIMONY 10
Lauren Coffey: You swear and to order comes the testimony you're about to give is truth, the whole truth and nothing 11
but the truth to the best of your knowledge? 12
13
Staff: I do 14
15
Applicants: I do 16
17
Leon Meyers: Can we take just about a 4-minute break here? Starting back at about 8:20. 18
19
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BREAKS UNTIL 8:20 PM 20
21
Leon Meyers: All right, thank you, Mr. Kuhn. 22
23
Ben Kuhn: Thank you very much. My name is Ben Kuhn, K-U-H-N. I'm with the Law Firm of Ragsdale Liggett in 24
Raleigh, and like Mrs. Brown, my exposure here may be brief, and I apologize for objecting. It's unfortunately 25
something that as the lawyer for the situation, I have to do, and I apologize. I try to do it as limited and as little as 26
possible. My business address for the record is 2840 Plaza Place, Raleigh, North Carolina 27612. I'm here on behalf of 27
Capkov Ventures, a Chapel Hill based developer with 20/30 plus years of development experience with communities, 28
residential communities in Orange County. We are here seeking to amend a 1985 special use permit and a 1991 29
amendment to that special use permit which were originally secured in connection with the Woods Edge Mobile Home 30
Park located between Highway 86 and I-40. The provisions of the special use permit and the amendment to it to be 31
amended include in the 1990 amendment to the SUP to relocate the required 25 acres of open space that you saw in 32
the staff report to be redistributed in the area across as you saw in a different fashion, and we'll have our witnesses talk 33
to that in just a bit. The second issue is the 1985 special use permit which included a condition for unitary ownership 34
which was an interesting condition. It was condition No. 16 that talked about unitary ownership and that the property 35
would not be owned individuals, which was kind of an interesting subpart to that condition. Again, I'm not going to do 36
much of the talking here. I'm going to introduce and give a snapshot of our witnesses. Our first witness that you'll hear 37
tonight is Eric Chupp. He is the gentleman in the first row here. He is the director of development for Capkov Ventures 38
and he's going to talk to you about the background, some site history and assess of the SUP amendment application. 39
Then we have Mr. Robert Chapman, who is sitting next to Mr. Chupp. He has 28 years of planning and residential 40
development experience across the Southeastern United States and he's going to speak to the standard UDO 5.2.3(c) 41
as to the SUP amendment being in harmony with the area in which it is located and that the use is in compliance with 42
the plan for physical development of the county per the comprehensive plan. Then you'll have Dan Jewell, who I think 43
you may have seen before. He's with us as well. He is with Thomas and Hutton, the landscape architect and principal 44
with Thomas and Hutton and he's going to speak to the special use permit standard in UDO 5.3.2 as to whether the 45
proposed SUP amendment will maintain and/or promote the public health, safety and welfare where proposed and as 46
developed and operated according to the plan as submitted and applicable UDO requirements. And then we have 47
Jarvis Martin, who is also here. He is with Stewart, Martin and McCoy, who has decades of experience as an 48
appraiser, including appraising residential homes and communities and he's going to speak to the third special use 49
permit standard in the UDO 5.3.2(b) as to whether the use as amended will maintain or enhance the value of 50
17
contiguous properties. And so, without further adieu, and without me getting into the weeds on any one of those, I'll 1
probably come back and sum up a little bit at the end, but I'd like to start off with Mr. Chupp's testimony. And 2
Mr. Chupp, if you would please come up. We did pass up a binder of documents. A black binder which you should 3
have that's titled with the case on the front and it contains five tabs, which include the resumes of our experts, who you 4
will hear in a moment, and it includes our PowerPoint presentation with Mr. Chupp and others will take you through. It 5
includes the market study by Jarvis Martin that talks about the enhancing or promoting the value. We also have a 6
special used permit narrative that is behind Tab No. 4 and a listing of the findings of fact behind Tab No. 5. 7
8
Leon Meyers: Excuse me before you leave the podium, let me ask, what is in this package that was not in the agenda 9
package, if anything? 10
11
Ben Kuhn: The resumes. I think the PowerPoint presentation. The market study. 12
13
Leon Meyers: I remember seeing the resumes and the market study, so it's just the PowerPoint that's in the binder 14
that we didn't have in the package? 15
16
Ben Kuhn: Yeah, I think that's right. 17
18
Leon Meyers: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Kuhn before he leaves the podium? Thank you, sir. All right, 19
Mr. Chupp? 20
21
Eric Chupp: Good evening. Thank you for being here Chair Meyers and the rest of the Board. I really appreciate 22
your time and listening to our presentation this evening. My name is Eric Chupp and I'm here on behalf of the applicant 23
Capkov Ventures Inc. I would like to thank this evening the Orange County Planning Department, in particular Cy 24
Stober and Taylor Perschau for their help and guidance in preparing the application and their excellent staff report. I'm 25
short, so I need to adjust this here. Capkov Ventures, the applicant, is a small development company based in Chapel 26
Hill, North Carolina. The company is family owned and managed by Scott Kovens and his youngest son Joe, both of 27
who are here with us this evening. Capkov has been building exclusively in Orange County since 1989, and I have 28
personally been working with Capkov Ventures for 33 years out of the 35 years since Capkov was founded. I've had 29
the opportunity and the pleasure to help build some of the finest communities in Orange County. I live in a community 30
developed in Carrboro called the Cedars at Bolin Forest where I've raised five children. My youngest son David walks 31
to Carrboro Elementary every day, and my youngest daughter Isabella goes to Smith Middle School where she plays 32
third base on a softball team and looks forward to attending Chapel Hill High next year. Scott Kovens lives in our 33
Franklin Grove Community in Chapel Hill next door to his son Joe, who lives at the entrance of the community on an 34
infill lot that we developed as well. The point being, we are all part of the community where we work and we are proud 35
of the contributions we have made to providing homes and families for those in Orange County. On the screen you 36
have a list of some of the communities that we have built. They're all in Orange County. As I said, this is where we've 37
been for the last 30 some years and its only place that we've ever developed since I've been associated with the 38
organization. The application before you today is a request to modify the 1985 Special Use Permit for the Woods Edge 39
Mobile Home Park and the 1991 modification of that same special use permit. The special use permit was approved 40
39 years ago. It was a planned development mobile home park and was modified 33 years ago to expand that mobile 41
home park and shift the open space southward from the western portion of the site to the southeastern corner of the 42
site. And so, this just shows how that shifted from the western portion of the site to the boot looking shape where it was 43
kind of placed in the middle of the 50 acres on the southern portion of the site. The Woods Edge property is located 44
just south of Waterstone Drive immediately adjacent to the UNC Hospital complex. It is bounded by Waterstone Drive 45
to the north, I-40 to the west, Highway 86 to the east, and Scarlett Mountain Drive to the south. The property is 46
surrounded by new community oriented public/private developments, including Durham Tech, a major UNC Hospital 47
campus, the new Waterstone Fire and Emergency Services station, and the Research Triangle Logistics Park, and the 48
Waterstone community as well. The site is also within walking distance of Orange County Stanback Middle School and 49
New Hope Elementary. The site is in a unique location, sandwiched between Orange County's biggest transit corridors 50
18
of I‑40, Highway 86 south, and I-85. The Woods Edge Mobile Home Park has provided an essential type of housing in 1
Orange County over the last 40 years. It has provided owner subsidized affordable housing that has benefited 2
thousands of families in the community for decades. It remains a well-cared for, fully occupied mobile home community 3
with a constant waiting list. The Woods Edge community has provided ideal housing for those who work in our 4
community but can't afford a single-family home. Our proposed modification of the Woods Edge Special Use Permit 5
does not change the character, operation, or affordability of the Woods Edge Mobile Home Park. We hope that that will 6
remain a vital part of Orange County's more affordable housing stock for years to come. The proposed modification 7
only changes two elements of the previous special use permits. It does away with the requirement for unitary 8
ownership, and it redistributes 25 acres of open space to areas that are more in line with the current Unified 9
Development Ordinance. All 25 acres remain as open space. The purpose of the two proposed modifications are as 10
follows. To allow for the future development of the vacant and underutilized land south of the Woods Edge Mobile Park 11
in uses consistent with the Hillsborough and Central Orange County Coordinated Land Use Plan for areas within the 12
town's urban services boundary and multiple other land use plans, all of which we'll show you tonight. No. 2, to provide 13
an ideal location for moderately priced housing, affordable housing, and neighborhood businesses which are all badly 14
needed in Southeastern Orange County. No. 3, to provide a more thoughtful distribution of the open space on the site. 15
A distribution of open site space which will consider environmentally sensitive areas, like steep slopes, streams, 16
hardwood forests, and in accordance with Orange County Unified Development Ordinance that now requires such 17
areas to be looked at first and foremost when allocating open space. No. 4, to allow for better open space buffers 18
between the Woods Edge Mobile Home property and the homes to the south. A buffer that is both more continuous 19
and more permanent. No. 5, and the last one finally, to permanently prohibit access to East Scarlett Mountain Road 20
from potential development from the north by dedicating the open space along the southern border of the property into 21
a permanent conservation easement. Now, I'll turn it over to our experts to kind of validate what I've just gone over as 22
those five purposes. Thank you very much. 23
24
Leon Meyers: Before you leave, let's see if the Board has any questions for you. Board members? 25
26
Nathan Robinson: Can you define for me as a non-lawyer what unitary ownership means? 27
28
Mr. Chupp: What unitary ownership, as non-lawyer, to me means is that the property remains under the ownership 29
of one individual or one corporation. 30
31
Nathan Robinson: As an attorney, who do I ask that question to? 32
33
Ben Kuhn: I don't know that I've ever seen that term, honestly, in a condition like that before, so I'm at a loss to 34
say unitary ownership except that, if there's a group of one or a group of three, by the time they got the special use 35
permit that that would be the unitary ownership group that held it at that time I'm guessing it would be. But then it says, 36
and lots shall not be sold to individuals, so it's a really confusing condition if you read Condition No. 16 the way it's 37
written. It says unitary ownership, and lots shall not be sold to individuals. So, it's confusing to me what it means. 38
39
Leon Meyers: Mr. Kuhn, I believe I saw a reference to some research on county commissioner minutes in the 40
package. Are you familiar with that research? 41
42
Ben Kuhn: I'm not. 43
44
Nathan Robinson: I didn't see that. 45
46
Leon Meyers: Is that my imagination, or did somebody do some research on county commissioner minutes? 47
48
Cy Stober: We did do the research. I'm uncertain, conferring with Ms. Perschau, that it's in the packet, but I have 49
the minutes right here if we need to enter them into the record. 50
19
1
Leon Meyers: Is there any insight in the minutes regarding the meaning of unitary ownership as Nathan just asked? 2
3
Mr. Kuhn: If I may, it doesn't say – 4
5
Leon Meyers: Mr. Kuhn just a minute. Let me get Taylor’s opinion here if I could, and Taylor if you care to speak to 6
that? 7
8
Cy Stober: I've got the minutes pulled up if I may speak to this? 9
10
Leon Meyers: Please. 11
12
Cy Stober: EC Brooks asked how the restrictions placed on this property will be recorded so that a title lawyer 13
won't pass. This is on, I'm sorry, Page 74 of the minutes from May 29th, 1990. EC Brooks asked how the restrictions 14
placed on this property will be recorded so that a title lawyer won't pass the title to someone who would think they could 15
buy this open land. Kirk indicated that this park, including the open space, recreation and park area, must stay in 16
unitary ownership. Those restrictions would be placed on a special use permit. It could be changed only if it becomes 17
10- or 20-year transition. That's a future land use classification in the comprehensive plan, and then an application 18
would need to be filed for a different plan development at a higher density rezoning. 19
20
Leon Meyers: Reading those minutes, do you understand that the commissioners' purpose in approving this concept 21
of unitary ownership was to preserve the open space, or was there something more that you read in the minutes? 22
23
Cy Stober: No sir. I think your conclusion is correct, that I share and that it was intended to be one piece with the 24
mobile home park and to be jointly held or unitarily held as its stated here. I have nothing else. 25
26
Leon Meyers Thank you. Mr. Kuhn, I cut you off. 27
28
Ben Kuhn: No problem. I would just point out also that the terms of the special use permit or the amendment in 29
1990, it basically says that - I think these are operative terms - the terms herein contained are binding on the present 30
owners, their successors in title and interest until such time as the project herein described, or the conditions herein, 31
are changed by government action, so that's what we're here for, government action. But I think it's actually interesting 32
when you read those terms in the special use permit itself, that it says, the terms herein contained are binding on the 33
present owners, their successors in title and interest. So, if you read that and then you read Condition No. 16, which 34
says the project must remain in unitary ownership and no lots can be sold to individuals, it's a little contradictory there, 35
because one presumes that the conditions would be binding on successors in interest which are Capkov. They bought 36
it, they didn't know about it, they found out about it and then brought this to the fore to both Hillsborough and the county 37
to try to deal with it head on, transparent. We're here to try to work on this issue, because we think that this project and 38
their plans and what they're trying to do is going to be beneficial and consistent with the comprehensive plan and 39
everything else. And so that's why we're bringing it forward. The unitary ownership condition is a little wonky to say the 40
least. It is also a restriction on the ability of a person's right to convey and transfer their property, and that's a 41
governmental regulation doing that. And restraints on alienation are disfavored in the law. They violate the public 42
policies established in the North Carolina Marketable Title Act in Chapter 47B. From those standpoints, it's a pretty 43
severe condition to put on someone. And the way it's written, it kind of at one point presumes that these conditions 44
would be binding on successors in title and interest and then it says that unitary ownership. But then it almost qualifies 45
that and says no lots can be sold to individuals. Well, we're not buying lots. They're not individuals. Capkov is not an 46
individual, so one could argue that really doesn't apply, and, even if it did, question whether it's enforceable or not. But 47
No. 2, we're here to just dispense with it, because it gets in the way of productive, progressive development of property 48
that's been identified in the comprehensive plan as a growth area. 49
50
20
Leon Meyers: Any follow up on the unitary ownership matter? 1
2
Nathan Robinson: Sounds like you don't really know the answer for what the definition is, because it hasn't been 3
listed before. But I would be interested in if there's some way to get the documentation of the minutes, I can 4
understand better when I read than when I listen sometimes. 5
6
Beth Bronson: Well, to your point, is there a change to the future land use on that parcel? 7
8
Ben Kuhn: Not pursuant to this proposed amendment. It's not going to change the land use. 9
10
Beth Bronson: I’m saying it’s not part of the 10- or 20-year development plan, it’s not part of an economic 11
development district. It is Rural Residential. 12
13
Ben Kuhn: But the special use permit says it can be amended by governmental action, and we're here under the 14
special use permit seeking government action to change the conditions. 15
16
Beth Bronson: But this is an existing special use permit though. So, the special use permit has already been issued 17
and you're asking to change the special use permit as it has been written. 18
19
Ben Kuhn: Correct. Which allows us to change it if we get government action. 20
21
Leon Meyers: Before you speak, let me see if Cy can respond to Nathan's questions on the minutes. 22
23
Cy Stober: Unfortunately, we don't have paper copies to provide, so everyone will get to see it at the same time. 24
25
Beth Bronson: And to clarify, is this part of the JPA? 26
27
Taylor Perschau: What was the question? 28
29
Beth Bronson: I will let you go ahead and present first. 30
31
Taylor Perschau: The minutes here Cy, so you have the agenda and the minutes. We're working on the fly. 32
33
Beth Bronson: Kirk being the applicant or the commissioner? 34
35
Cy Stober: Mr. Kirk was the applicant on behalf of the woods mobile home park. 36
37
Beth Bronson: And the park referring to the mobile park and the open space referring to the undeveloped parcel next 38
to it. 39
40
Taylor Perschau: The 1985 permit had the western parcel designated as open space. These minutes are from a 41
1990 meeting in which a park expansion was approved to the west, but, in order to approve that western expansion, the 42
open space was moved to the south. 43
44
Beth Bronson: okay, and, just for my clarification, these minutes are from what meeting? 45
46
Taylor Perschau: May 29th, 1990. 47
48
Beth Bronson: Because it had been amended April 2nd, 1990, so there was an amendment to the UDO and then 49
there was the special use permit. I just wanted to make sure I got my dates correct. 50
21
1
Taylor Perschau: Can you say that again? Is there a question in there? 2
3
Beth Bronson: The joint planning agreement was amended in April 2nd, 1990, and this special use permit application 4
occurred in May of 1990. 5
6
Taylor Perschau: These are the meeting minutes, when the special use permit was recorded, I think was a 7
separate date from these. 8
9
Beth Bronson: I think I’m talking of the document that they're using for this special use permit? So, you're enacting 10
the joint planning agreement by having the rural buffer as being located within the rural buffer. Am I way off the mark 11
on this? 12
13
Cy Stober: The minutes are consistent with the agenda from the May 29th, 1990, Joint Public Hearing of the Board 14
of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board, and that's what the action reflected which was a new 15
special use permit for believe it was the - I get confused which one came first the woods or woods edge. But, for the 16
woods mobile home and then a modification to woods edge mobile home park to create essentially a master plan for 17
the entirety of the mobile home park plus the open space. 18
19
Nathan Robinson: Could you scroll to where you had it highlighted previously? 20
21
Taylor Perschau: Yes. 22
23
Leon Meyers: James, since we're talking about this, is it appropriate for these minutes to be entered as part of the 24
hearing record? 25
26
James Bryan: Anything that's on the screen should be included in the record. 27
28
Leon Meyers: Okay. 29
30
Nathan Robinson: Okay, I think my questions are answered. 31
32
Leon Meyers: Any other questions before we go to Eric who has been trying to speak for 10 minutes? 33
34
Cy Stober: Mr. Chair, if I may clarify? Ms. Bronson is correct that the joint planning land use plan was modified on 35
April 2nd, 1990, but the direct connection to this special use permit is not clear to me. So, I’m not sure. They may be 36
related matters, but they're not part of our findings of fact at this time. 37
38
Leon Meyers: Okay thank you. Eric? 39
40
Eric Chupp: I just wanted to say that it's always been our interpretation that unified ownership of the property 41
means that the property stays together as one, and part of that was because the open space was allocated as part of 42
that shift. What we're here to do tonight is to show that land use plans have been approved jointly by Orange County 43
and Hillsborough since then, and a redistribution of that open space is perfectly in line with those land use plans that 44
have been approved since then and that the redistribution of that open space is more in line with the current UDO than 45
it was then. So that's just kind of an overall perspective form our standpoint. I'm going to turn it over to Bob at this 46
point. 47
48
Robert Chapman: Good evening. Good evening, Chairman Meyers and fellow members of the Orange County 49
Board of Adjustment. My name is Robert L. Chapman. I live at 2525 Lanier Place in Durham. I'm an acknowledged 50
22
expert in the permitting and development walkable mixed-use neighborhoods. I have developed projects in North 1
Carolina, Florida, Arkansas and Missouri and obtained zoning approvals for mixed use communities with nearly 21,000 2
residential units as well as commercial and retail centers and educational facilities. I'm the founding chair of the North 3
Carolina Smart Growth Alliance. In addition, I am the cofounder and former board chair of the National Town Builders 4
Association. I'm a signer of the Charter for the New Urbanism, and a long-time board member of the Congress for 5
New Urbanism and a board member of the Seaside Institute, Durham Central Park and Preservation Durham. I served 6
on the task force that developed the US National Green Building Council's LEED standards for neighborhood 7
development. My articles on real estate have been published in New Urban News and The Southern Urbanism 8
Quarterly, and I frequently lecture at the UNC planning school and at the UNC and Duke business schools. You have 9
in front of you a map showing that this area is really an excellent and highly desirable place because of the mix of uses 10
ranging from the medical campus, UNC hospital, Durham Tech, multifamily residential, townhouse residential, single 11
family residential, and the site is within walking distance of Stanback Middle and New Hope Elementary schools. It 12
really is a rare and very desirable area. In my professional opinion, the location and character of the use proposed, if 13
developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located, and the use is in 14
compliance with the plan for the physical development of the county as embodied in your regulations, codes, 15
ordinances and the comprehensive plan and future land use map or portions thereof. This is the future land use map, 16
and the site is in orange which is labeled mixed residential neighborhood which is exactly what's being proposed for 17
that area. This is the recently adopted Hillsborough comprehensive sustainability plan and corresponds with the joint 18
land use plan designating the site as a potential growth area. The urban services' boundary shows the limitations of 19
public water and sewer service, water service extensions from Hillsborough and into Orange County. The site is in the 20
urban service boundary and has both water and sewer previously extended to the property. To summarize, in my 21
opinion, the unitary ownership commitment will greatly impede the creation of a vibrant walkable mixed-use community 22
and, therefore, that requirement should be discarded by this board. The proposed redistribution of the open space is in 23
harmony with the area and conforms with the goals and aspirations of the enacted land use plans for the physical 24
development of the broader community. To summarize, the applicant's plans will be in harmony with the surrounding 25
area. Second, the idea is laid out in the current land use plans, can only be accomplished through the removal of the 26
requirement of unitary ownership as shown in the submitted SUP modification narrative and thirdly, the redistribution of 27
open space is in accordance with the current unified development plan, section 7.12.c1 which explains how primary and 28
secondary space should be prioritized. I'll now turn things over to Mr. Dan Jewell who will explain the benefits of 29
reallocating the open space. Thank you very much. 30
31
Leon Meyers: Bob before you leave, let's see if board members have questions for Mr. Chapman. 32
33
Beth Bronson: Can you repeat that last clarification? I apologize. The last clarification you had. 34
35
Robert Chapman: The redistribution of open space is in accordance with the current unified development plan, 36
section 7.12.c.1 which explains how primary and secondary space should be prioritized. 37
38
Leon Meyers: Any other questions? Thank you. 39
40
Dan Jewell: Good evening, folks. Chair Meyers, fellow board members. My name is Dan Jewell. I'm a licensed 41
landscape architect, principal in the Durham office in Thomas and Hutton. We're an engineering landscaping 42
architectural and planning and surveying firm located at 2510 Meridian Parkway in Durham. I obtained a degree in 43
landscape architecture from Purdue University in 1981, became licensed in 1983, and have been practicing as a 44
professional landscape architect in North Carolina, particularly in Orange County, since 1985. During that time, I’ve 45
been responsible for the design of multiple site plans, site designs, over these past 39 years, which require consistency 46
with the Orange County Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinances. I'd like to address the finding of fact A in the 47
UDO, which reads, "the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare if located where 48
proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted." You've seen this slide several times 49
already which shows the current configuration of the open space. As this exhibit shows, the open space is committed 50
23
with simply an L shaped area of 25 acres that was delineated with no apparent thought or relationship to natural 1
systems, sensitive areas, or separation for the adjacent neighbors. The rudimentary nature of this map makes it pretty 2
clear to me that it was the most expedient way to draw this out for the applicant at the time. It didn't even require any 3
surveying. They just hatched out a map that had been drawn previously. And you can see what some of that open 4
space looks like from these two slides. These indicate areas of the committed open space, which are simply the areas 5
under the high transmission power lines that Duke Energy maintains by clear cutting every couple of years. The 6
proposed redistribution, and this'll get a little bit more detail into what we're looking at, what we're proposing, as shown 7
on this slide, in my professional opinion, is a vast improvement over the originally dedicated open space from more than 8
30 years ago. If you recall Mr. Chapman's testimony, he referred to the current open space portion of the UDO, 9
specifically section 7.12.4, which was not in place when the original SUP was approved. I'd also like to point out on this 10
slide, because it shows it clearly, we are proposing to commit to a permanent conservation easement along the 11
southern property line in the area shown in green on this exhibit. And this is that section from the ordinance that calls 12
how the current ordinance actually identifies primary open space as that open space that should always be set aside 13
first when we do any type of development of scale in Orange County. What it says is we have to protect riparian 14
buffers, wet areas, steep slopes, areas of wildlife habitat, things of that nature, and the slide I showed you a minute ago 15
does exactly that. It's important to understand that we are in no way diminishing the 25 acres of open space that were 16
committed in the earlier special use permit. Rather, we're proposing to redistribute it. You've heard that four times 17
already tonight, in a way that meets the current ordinance goals of establishing these primary open space areas and 18
protecting them. We're protecting stream buffers. We're protecting steep slopes. We're protecting buffer areas. And 19
most importantly, what we are doing, which was not part of the original special use permit, is we are now committing to 20
moving that committed open space to the southern border along Scarlett Mountain Road. It's a protection that those 21
neighbors do not enjoy today, and, as I said, it would also put a portion of this in a permanent conservation easement, 22
which would prohibit access to Scarlett Mountain Road. This slide shows a little more clearly, if you can see that darker 23
gray area to the south, that area is not currently within the 25 acres of open space in the current special use permit. 24
That area could be developed today. We estimate 20 single family homes could be built in that area adjacent to 25
Scarlett Mountain Road and along the southern property line. The current zoning would allow that use and we could 26
easily fit a road in and put lots in and that sort of thing, and even have driveways off of Scarlett Mountain Road. We 27
know the neighbors to the south don't want that at all, and we don't want that either. 28
29
Leon Meyers: Can you point out the area on the map. 30
31
Dan Jewell: Make it a little more clear. This area, are you able to see the cursor move? 32
33
Leon Meyers: Yes. 34
35
Dan Jewell: Okay. So, here's the southern property line. This line represents the southern edge of the currently 36
committed open space. There's several hundred feet in there that could be developed that are not currently 37
encumbered by it. Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Chair. That's why we feel in all ways what we're proposing 38
provides better protection to the public, health, safety and welfare, particularly for the neighbors, the environment, the 39
natural systems, than today. So, in summary, and in my professional opinion as a landscape architect, our proposed 40
redistribution of the 25 acres of committed open space will be much better at promoting the public health, safety and 41
general welfare, by protecting the primary open space as required by the UDO, which the open current configuration 42
does not, and by further providing an absolute open space buffer along the southern property line and Scarlett 43
Mountain Road, which will give those neighbors the benefit of not having development right next to them. Thank you. 44
I'm happy to answer any questions before I turn it over to the next witness. 45
46
Leon Meyers: Were there questions for Mr. Jewell? 47
48
Greg Niemiroski: I have a question. It appears in one of the attachments about the plat that that area you 49
referenced was not actually part of this property when the initial special use permit was done. 50
24
1
Dan Jewell: That's correct. 2
3
Greg Niemiroski: The reconfiguration is not simply reconfiguring it based on the lot size and shape as it was at 4
the time of the last two versions. 5
6
Dan Jewell: Correct. We are adding additional properties into the burden of the special use permit and those 7
additional properties will have the conditions on them if you choose to approve our request for a new special use 8
permit. 9
10
Nathan Robinson: When I look at this drawing right here this little part is the 25 acres that we're talking about, 11
correct? The one that's etched in green. 12
13
Dan Jewell: Yes sir. 14
Nathan Robinson: And then there's brown that you've shown a road to go through, how many acres is this brown 15
lot here? 16
17
Dan Jewell: I haven't measured it. By eyeballing it, that's probably a total of another 25 acres. Something like that. 18
19
Nathan Robinson: So, this was purchased by the same company, this was purchased by the same ownership? 20
21
Dan Jewell: Correct. 22
23
Nathan Robinson: Okay. Has it been unified as one property? 24
25
Dan Jewell: Yes. 26
27
Nathan Robinson: So, it has been unified? So, we know the acreage then, right? 28
29
Dan Jewell: It has been recombined, yes. 30
31
Eric Chupp: Its 50 acres, the lower portion. 32
33
Nathan Robinson: So, we have 25 acres here, and then that lower portion is another 50 acres? 34
35
Jeff Scott: 25. 36
37
Nathan Robinson: 25. I'm sorry. 38
39
Dan Jewell: 50 total. 40
41
Nathan Robinson: And then, but then you add this brown property up here. Is this part of the story as well? 42
Because you presented it as part of the story, but you don't present it as part of the story at the same time. 43
44
Dan Jewell: No. That was not part of the current special use permit. I don't believe it's part of the current special 45
use permit proposal, but we're showing how we're protecting other areas of the site. But the 25 acres that we're 46
protecting are within the area of the special use permit that we are requesting. 47
48
Ben Kuhn: That's just an illustrative specific to what could possibly be built there with the open space and the 49
configuration as it is now. 50
25
1
Nathan Robinson: This exhibit's demonstrating that the ownership currently owns these brown parcels here. And 2
if the ownership wanted to, you could develop the brown parts into however many lots you can develop it. Is that the 3
point of it, what this was presenting? 4
5
Dan Jewell: That's correct. 6
7
Ben Kuhn: And that the development could be sent into the southern boundary of Scarlett Mountain Road – 8
9
Leon Meyers: Let's have everybody who's testifying come to the mic. It'll make it a little bit easier for whoever's going 10
to prepare the minutes. Just, as your speaking, please do come forward. 11
12
Ben Kuhn: My understanding is it's an illustrative exhibit to try to demonstrate that if the open space is not 13
reconfigured, that potential future development could go as far south as to the property, other than the applicable 14
setbacks, to the southern property line. And, so, essentially, development could be closer to Scarlett Mountain Road 15
and those property owners without the amendment as opposed to with the amendment. The amendment would have a 16
significant buffer with a permanent conservation easement, which would not be able to be changed by government 17
action. It would be permanent. What we're doing is trying to increase the protection and to make it permanent with a 18
conservation easement. 19
20
Eric Chupp: I just wanted to help clarify your question, Mr. Robinson. The area in brown shown in the upper right-21
hand corner is not under consideration for the special use permit. None of the open space that's shown on that is part 22
of the 25 acres. That's just showing that if that property were submitted as a separate permit, that it could be developed 23
with a roadway that might reach there. But none of that is in consideration with the special use permit modification. 24
25
Nathan Robinson: Okay. 26
27
Leon Meyers: Let me ask for, and whoever cares to answer, would the impact of approving this special use permit 28
change the boundaries of the parcels that are subject to the 1991 special use permit? 29
30
Ben Kuhn: Ben Kuhn. No, it would not. 31
32
Leon Meyers: Thank you. Anything else, Nathan, or other board members? 33
34
Beth Bronson: It's only two parcels being considered for the special use permit, and then there are multiple parcels 35
that are part of the unity, not the unity, but the single owner of, you know the adjacent ones. When you look it up and it 36
looks like you have adjacent properties, but the majority are owned by Capkov. And that's what's being indicated in 37
those. Which are not open to the special use, certainly. But for the purposes of this hearing, it is necessary to confirm 38
that the 25 acres of open space are on both parcels that are up for consideration. But I still can't see the line where 39
they hit the different pins. If you're showing me the open space that's designated and then there's that stream border, I 40
guess, parcel border. 41
42
Eric Chupp: If you show the green space map and there it will show that it's all along the subject property line. 43
44
Beth Bronson: I apologize. I see new lot 1, new lot 2. And that was from, I suppose, when they updated the SUP. 45
46
Dan Jewell: Correct. This exhibit shows how the 25-acres of open space is distributed within the special use 47
permit. 48
49
Nathan Robinson: No, this one does. That's what you're proposing. This is what the current one shows. 50
26
1
Dan Jewell: That's correct. You're referring to, we keep going back to this one. This shows what it is today. 2
3
Beth Bronson: Well, it's half of it, it's just that bottom half. And that is only on a single parcel or does that original 25 4
bleed into that secondary parcel, where the mobile home park is. 5
6
Dan Jewell: I believe there's been a recombination. 7
8
Nathan Robinson: But it's two parcels. 9
10
Eric Chupp: It covers portions of two parcels. 11
12
Beth Bronson: It covers portions of two parcels. But to be clear, it is still two parcels under consideration that would 13
ultimately need to be combined if a special use permit amendment was granted, right, per this system. 14
15
Ben Kuhn: For potential future development. I don't know that it would need to be combined just for purposes of 16
this special use permit. 17
18
Beth Bronson: Obviously. But, for the purposes of the intent of design, why the applicant would need to redistribute 19
25 acres because all of these properties still need to be combined into one parcel. 20
21
Ben Kuhn: And or subdivided into separate parcels. 22
23
Beth Bronson: And or subdivided, should it not be a unitarian ownership. 24
25
Leon Meyers: While you're at the podium, Dan referred to dedicating a portion of the 25 acres as a permanent, is it a 26
conservation easement? 27
28
Ben Kuhn: Yes. Along the southern boundary line adjacent to Scarlett Mountain Road, because one could argue 29
that if we just redistributed it in some way, somebody could come back here in another 6 months and try to do the same 30
thing. The conservation easement won't allow us to do that. 31
32
Leon Meyers: I understand. I don't see that as a condition listed on page 144. Would you be willing to accept that as 33
a condition of the special use permit? 34
35
Eric Chupp: That was the intent. 36
37
Ben Kuhn: Along the southern boundary closest to Scarlett Mountain Road. 38
39
Eric Chupp: The area that's shaded. And just for a little background, when we held the neighborhood information 40
meeting, there was definitely concern about a buffer along Scarlett Mountain Road. This kind of came out of that 41
neighborhood information meeting, dedicating the 100 feet, you know, for the first third of it, and then really a much 42
larger expansion of it for the entire rural buffer area to the western portion of that. And all of that would be placed in a 43
permanent conservation easement. 44
45
Leon Meyers: And you're fine with adding that as a condition of the SUP? 46
47
Eric Chupp: Absolutely. That was the intent. Thank you. 48
49
Leon Meyers: Thank you. Anything else for Mr. Jewell? Thank you, sir. 50
27
1
Dan Jewell: Thank you. With that, I’ll turn it over to Mr. Jarvis Martin, the appraiser, to talk about effect on property 2
value. 3
4
Jarvis Martin: Good evening, Chairman Meyers and members of the Board of Adjustment. I am Jarvis Martin. I'm a 5
State certified general appraiser, and I have been appraising properties here in the triangle area for over 45 years. I'm a 6
retired member of the Appraisal Institute, and a retired DSRE designation. I'm a former member of the Durham City 7
County Planning Commission, and I hold two degrees from North Carolina Central University. And I've had the privilege, 8
in the past, to appear before this Board of Adjustment. At the request of the applicant and actually with the applicant, we 9
drove the area of property that is in question off Scarlett Mountain Road as well as the section along Highway 86. One 10
of the things that we wanted to determine was what is the current distance of the existing homes from the proposed 100-11
foot buffer on these parcels. And based upon our calculations that the one property that's in the report, that's on Highway 12
86, is approximately 300 feet from the 100-foot buffer, and that on Scarlett Mountain Road, the homes, they vary from 13
the minimum of 365 feet to over 1,000 feet to, again, the 100-foot buffer. We've provided you with photographs of the 14
current vegetation, if you ride out there and that you will see that exists, as well as a map that we use to sort of get our 15
distances. What we were asked to do was to see if we could find market condition, or market support for homes that abut 16
or are near the development. And in our research, we found for you four examples that I want to summarize. There's a 17
property at 1500 Allen Lane, which you have a map, in proximity to Eno Ridge. And a picture of that property, as well as 18
access. And our research determined that this property over time has sold three times in the past 15 years. With it being 19
in proximity to Cates Landing, we wanted to determine what impact the development of this community may have had on 20
the sale. Cates Landing was developed around 2019, and we found the sale for this property that's shown on Page 15, 21
Market Study B, where this property, again, and we indicated was sold three times over the 15-year period, each time 22
this property has appreciated in value. Today's market, the price prescribed for it, the list sales ratio was all in line with 23
other market homes, and the most recent sale shows that this property sold for a substantial increase over the last sale, 24
which was in 2003. And that it sold within a very short period of time for 100 percent of the list price, which that sale 25
indicates then that the development that was put there has not had any adverse impact on that property and may have 26
even helped it some. We have a second study dealing with the property at 1624 Poplar that you have a picture of the 27
home, as well as the details of the sales on that property. And our study indicated that, again, these two properties both 28
that I'm speaking about, are on unpaved private roads, and that again this property has sold multiple times. We are 29
looking primarily at the last sale, again, that occurred after the proposed development went into effect, and this sale sold 30
in 2024 and it had also appreciated on average over $21,000.00 per year, and sold at 97 percent of its list sales ratio, 31
which again shows that the development that went in subsequently had no adverse impact. Since we were dealing only 32
with individual scattered sales, again looking at properties that are in close proximity and having a similar characteristic 33
as the homes along Scarlett Mountain Road, we then decided that we were going to look at some subdivisions as it 34
relates to existing subdivisions within the community, and all of these sales are within Orange County, and subdivisions 35
that subsequently came later. So we looked at the impact that Ramsley Community would have on North Woods. North 36
Woods being an old established community, and Ramsley being built subsequently. And what we found, again, that in 37
the North Wood community, after the development of Ramsley, they had multiple sales and that these sales all 38
appreciated substantially in value, with minimum days on market and high list sales ratio. Again, you have there in your 39
package that support the sales information as well as photographs of the communities that we're speaking about. And 40
then, again, finally, we decided to take a look again at another community at the Cabe Crossing, with a similar situation 41
where you have an established community that was there and subsequently had a new residential community to come 42
within proximity, to look at if there was any impact on homes in that established community after the new community was 43
built and operational, and our data support the fact that there was no adverse impact. Again, most of these homes have 44
appreciated quite substantially in value over time, and that they're all selling for a high percentage, above 95 percent, of 45
the list sales ratio. Realizing that all properties in our market, because of the high demand and the growth, would generally 46
appreciate in value, we decided we would take one additional step and look at homes out in the County that did not have 47
any substantial new residential community development near them, and to see if those home and how they were 48
appreciating in value in relationship to the homes that we had analyzed earlier. And the data support the fact that these 49
homes are appreciating comparable to those, and that there's no impact shown on those homes out in the County as it 50
28
relates to homes that are sold with residential development close by. Based upon these studies and the analysis, it is 1
my conclusion and professional opinion that the proposed modification of the special use permit would have no adverse 2
impact on property demand or values. The proposed modification would have no adverse impact on the marketability of 3
the surrounding properties based upon this market study and the analysis. This proposed modification is in harmony with 4
the surrounding neighborhood. This proposed modification would maintain or enhance property values and marketability. 5
The proposed distribution of the land use to move the open space to align with other open space creeks, natural areas, 6
would improve and provide better buffer protection for the existing homes on Scarlett Mountain Road. Based upon the 7
data provided, and the testimony presented, it is my professional opinion that the applicant has met all the requirements 8
and standards of the UDO for you to vote for approval of the modification. I'm open for any questions. 9
10
Leon Meyers: Questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you sir. 11
12
Beth Bronson: I’m sorry, I have one question. All those market analyses, the average comparisons, what was the 13
average parcel size? 14
Jarvis Martin: I’m sorry. 15
16
Beth Bronson: For the case, like the comp evaluations, for 1500 Allen and the Poplar Lane, the development area in 17
the market study, that was developed, what was that average parcel size? 18
19
Leon Meyers: Okay, hold on just a second. 20
21
Beth Bronson: I guess it would be the size of the Ramsley community. 22
23
Jarvis martin: I don't think we included it for Allen, but on Scarlett - yeah, go ahead. 24
25
Walter Snowden: That was not really addressed, simply because of how the research was developed. 26
27
Leon Meyers: Excuse me, sir could you identify yourself? 28
29
Walter Snowden: My name is Walter Snowden. I am a real estate appraiser. 30
31
Leon Meyers: Thank you. 32
33
Jarvis Martin: And Walter assisted with some of the research on this project. 34
35
Leon Meyers: I understand. 36
37
Walter Snowden: How the process was developed, first I looked at things that actually were similar to what was 38
on East Scarlett Mountain Road. Those parcels were 5, 10 acres, 15 acres. So, establishing that, because we wanted 39
like for like, so that way we could really get an understanding of how it would impact a house on a private road with 40
different expectations than something that's in a neighborhood that only has a quarter acre lot. So, there's not an 41
average, because I looked at specific segments, and then went out to a broader market and because we aggregated 42
the data, we kept the individual characteristics for each study, but I didn't necessarily combine it, because it would be 43
like comparing apples to oranges, because it was just too much data. 44
45
Jarvis Martin: But the property on poplar lane, it is 10.48 acres, and we did include that in that description. 46
47
Beth Bronson: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I think I misconstrued my question in that I’m asking the 48
property being dubbed the development. The planned development in these areas that would've affected it. The size 49
of those development areas. 50
29
1
Jarvis Martin: In the neighborhoods that we worked with – 2
3
Beth Bronson: That would be adjacent yeah. 4
5
Jarvis Martin: Then those homes were on quarter, typically quarter acre lots, or less. 6
7
Beth Bronson: Okay. Thank you. I think, and then another thing is, this is a 50 plus acre development compared to a, 8
no I guess it's more like a hundred acres, that's within the special use permit area. But thank you for explaining that. I 9
do appreciate it. 10
11
Leon Meyers: Sorry. Excuse me? 12
13
Ben Kuhn: We're kind of, at a house keeping kind of session right now in terms of you just heard from our three 14
expert witnesses, and I’d like to tender each. Mr. Robert Chapman, as an expert based on his testimony and 15
background and his credentials that were outlined, and his market study as well. I'd like to tender Mr. Dan Jewell as an 16
expert as well, with respect to his testimony and I’d like to also tender Jarvis Martin as an expert as well. 17
18
Leon Meyers: Any concerns about the qualifications for these witnesses? 19
20
Beth Bronson: No. 21
22
Leon Meyers: Without objection, those qualifications are accepted. 23
24
Ben Kuhn: And, with that, if you have any further questions of the applicant, we're here to answer any further 25
questions. Mr. Chupp, if you have any concluding remarks. 26
27
Eric Chupp: I would just like to say that we're here and available to answer any questions that you have. 28
29
Leon Meyers: So any members, any questions before the matter comes to the Board? 30
31
Beth Bronson: We're not going to hear from Mr. Chapman? 32
33
Leon Meyers: Mr. Chapman spoke. 34
35
Beth Bronson: Okay. Apologies. 36
37
Nathan Robinson: I have a question for you. So, there was the Woods Edge that was the owner of all of it, right? 38
39
Eric Chupp: Uh huh. 40
41
Nathan Robinson: And then now it's owned by Capkov? Is that correct? 42
43
Eric Chupp: So, the 50-acres, Orange County approved two recombination surveys since 2019, when we purchased 44
the property. One was to recombine the lower portion of the property. So, you have 50-acres on the south. 45
46
Nathan Robinson: Can you show me on the map where you're talking about? 47
48
30
Eric Chupp: Actually, I think I have a plat map. So, that's the Recombination Plat. We purchased those 50-acres 1
from Roger Dale Stephens who is the manager of Woods Edge, and he retains the mobile home park north of the creek, 2
which you can see on this plat map. 3
4
Nathan Robinson: So, you purchased, can I go back to this one? So, you're saying you purchased this parcel down 5
here, and then you purchased this one, and then combined it was 25 plus 25, and that got you 50? Is that what you're 6
saying? 7
8
Eric Chupp: No. The original and let me go to the original plat map on this. That was the original configuration of the 9
property. So, they were two 50 acres parcels. There was 50 acres north of the creek. There's 50 acres south of the 10
creek. 11
12
Nathan Robinson: Okay. 13
14
Eric Chupp: The creek divides the property just north of the power line easement. 15
16
Nathan Robinson: The creek bisects it, but it isn't divided legally. 17
18
Eric Chupp: No. I would say the creek runs through this area. 19
20
Nathan Robinson: Correct, yes. 21
22
Eric Chupp: Okay. If you go back. It was divided north to south. 23
24
Nathan Robinson: Correct. And then the purpose of the special use permit that we're speaking of appears to be 25
an addition of land up here where they expanded the mobile home park over, this is the original Plat that you just pulled 26
up before? I'm just trying to understand the history to make sure that as we’re evaluating a change to a special use, the 27
special use is attached to a specific property. 28
29
Eric Chupp: Correct. 30
31
Nathan Robinson: I'm just trying to make it clear which property, yeah, so this, it appears that they added, Woods 32
Edge added, extended to the west. 33
34
Eric Chupp: Correct. 35
36
Nathan Robinson: And with the extension of that, they got a special use permit to say, we're going to extend our 37
mobile home park into the west and in exchange for that, they were going to dedicate the 25-acres on that bottom L to 38
open space. 39
40
Eric Chupp: Yes. 41
42
Nathan Robinson: Okay. So, then all that property was owned by Woods Edge at that point. 43
44
Eric Chupp: Correct. 45
46
Nathan Robinson: Now, does Woods Edge own any of this property currently or are there two owners? 47
48
Eric Chupp: Woods Edge owns all of the property north of the creek. So, the plat map is divided into two pages. This 49
is the top page that we're looking at now. And that is still retained by Woods Edge. 50
31
1
Nathan Robinson: So, Woods Edge owns the top piece. 2
3
Eric Chupp: Correct. 4
5
Nathan Robinson: Capkov bought the bottom piece in addition to the 25 acres that “L”s around the bottom left, the 6
west and the south. 7
8
Eric Chupp: The bottom piece, which is 50-acres, the 25-acres is embedded in the middle of the – 9
10
Nathan Robinson: Right, so the 25 acres there, and then the area to the west and the area to the south, he 11
purchased that property as well. 12
13
Eric Chupp: Well, just these 50-acres here is the only part. These two are the only things that are involved in the 14
special use permit modification. 15
16
Nathan Robinson: Right, so you bought these 25-acres and then this 25-acres. 17
18
Beth Bronson: Can I make a point of clarification? I apologize to interrupt. I want to make sure that, Nathan, I understand 19
your question. The 25-acres that is part of the designated open space is located within a 50-acre parcel. 20
21
Nathan Robinson: But half of that 50-acres was never part of the original SUP. 22
23
Beth Bronson: Not that I understand that. I, what I'm understanding is – 24
25
Eric Chupp: It was. 26
27
Nathan Robinson: No it wasn't. 28
29
Eric Chupp: No, I think it was. 30
31
Nathan Robinson: Definitely wasn't. 32
33
Leon Meyers: I asked that question a few minutes ago, and I understood Mr. Kuhn to say that this proposed SUP does 34
not change the boundary of the previous SUPs. 35
36
Eric Chupp: And that's correct. The planning department made sure that the reallocation of the open space stayed 37
within that original SUP permit which was 100-acres that involved both pieces that Roger Dale Stevens owned. 38
39
Nathan Robinson: Wait, say that one more time. Say that one more time. 40
41
Taylor Perschau: If I may, I have the special use permits that were recorded for the Woods and the Woods Edge 42
that designate the acreage. I think I have a visual that I think will help. 43
44
Nathan Robinson: Okay. 45
46
Taylor Perschau: It's going to take a minute to pull up. 47
48
Leon Meyers: Nathan, your concern is that, that we're approving a change of a boundary. 49
50
32
Nathan Robinson: I'm looking at the GIS map right now, and when I look at the GIS map right here, I see Woods 1
Edge owns this top parcel up here. I'm just trying to understand. I don't understand what's being proposed and I don't 2
understand how all the properties fit together. 3
4
Taylor Perschau: If you need a break, now's a good time. 5
6
Beth Bronson: I actually do want to, I think, bring up a good point since we have reached 9:30 and in the application, it 7
does indicate that the presentation may go over 30 minutes, which I do believe has been reached. Do we want to extend 8
the meeting past 10:00 or do we want to hold the meeting to 10:00. 9
10
Leon Meyers: I would say, let's get a little closer to 10 and see where we are, would be my preference. 11
12
Beth Bronson: Not a problem. 13
14
Leon Meyers: Yeah. 15
16
Taylor Perschau: These are the properties as they existed in 1990. Where we have the 48.77-acres on the west, 17
the 50 acres on the east. This is the 1990 permit, the special use permit for Woods Edge which describes the property 18
as all of tract and parcel to include 50-acres. 19
20
Nathan Robinson: Which is this little U, C-shaped thing. The C is the 50-acres. 21
22
Taylor Perschau: Yes. As it was oriented east to west, it's the 50-acres on the east. 23
24
Nathan Robinson: So that was what originally defined Woods Edge. 25
26
Taylor Perschau: Yes. And then separately, we have the 1990 special use permit for The Woods. Which is 27
described as all of the tract and parcel identified as the Woods, 48.77 acres. So, with those two permits, I believe that 28
the entirety of this parcel and this parcel were subject to the two special use permits. 29
30
Leon Meyers: That's really helpful, thank you. 31
32
Nathan Robinson: Say that one more time. That's, that is helpful, but I need to hear it one more time. 33
34
Taylor Perschau: Sure, so those two permits that we are looking at were recorded in the register of deeds. This 35
one for the Woods details the full 48.77 acres as being subject to the special use permit, and then the second one details 36
the full 50 acres as being subject to the special use permit. So, my reading of those two descriptions of properties, and 37
James can correct me, but it would be that the special use permit for the Woods Edge applied to the entirety of this parcel 38
shape. And the special use permit of the Woods applied to the entirety of this shape. 39
40
Nathan Robinson: So then, why does this parcel not show that bottom part? Why does this map not show the 41
bottom part? 42
43
Taylor Perschau: I can't tell you why they designated the, so that one is specifically, let me see if I can pull that up 44
while. 45
46
47
Beth Bronson: So, the 25 acres was never surveyed off and defined. 48
49
33
Nathan Robinson: Well, that's what I can't tell. When I see this map right here, what this map is communicating to 1
me, which I need clarity on. This is map is communicating to me that this original C-plate, C, that we talked about, was 2
Woods Edge. Then the map is communicating to me that a special use permit was for half of it because that's 25 acres, 3
because the whole thing was 50, give or take. These people were going to buy this as Woods Edge and designate this 4
bottom 25 acres to open space. And so, when I see those, I see that, I get it. I see that, 25 acres, I get it. But I'm having 5
trouble tracking where this fits in the story. 6
7
Taylor Perschau: Sure. 8
9
Nathan Robinson: So, that's where I'm stuck. 10
11
Taylor Perschau: Well, my reading of it would be that that is an illustrative to specifically detail how the open space 12
itself is being moved from one permit to another. 13
14
Nathan Robinson: But it shows a property boundary. 15
16
Leon Meyers: Defining the parcels. 17
18
Nathan Robinson: Yeah, this shows a property boundary. Is this incorrect, and the property boundary should 19
include the bottom? This is E1.1 by the way. Just for the recording. 20
21
Eric Chupp: Right, my understanding is that the special use permit is actually controlling which references the 48 22
acres, anybody can correct me if I'm wrong, but this was an illustrative drawing that was intended to show where the open 23
space has been moved to, and unfortunately, in part of the confusion here, and the part of the reason that Orange County 24
recorded the recombination plat, and part of the confusion of why we're here today is that map was never recorded. That 25
map was never recorded in the register of deeds, nobody ever found it, it was found in the archives of the clerk of Orange 26
County by the planning department, years after the recombination was done. Nobody knew where the 25 acres of open 27
space was. 28
29
Nathan Robinson: Wait, hold on a second. When you say the recombination was done, you mean the recombination 30
to create this perimeter. 31
32
Eric Chupp: The plat map that I just showed you a little bit ago, yes, this one. That's the recombination Plat that I 33
believe was recorded in 2019. 34
35
Nathan Robinson: Recombination of what parcels? 36
37
Eric Chupp: So, the top parcel was Woods Edge. 50 acres above the power lines. 38
39
Nathan Robinson: Okay. 40
41
Eric Chupp: And 50 acres below. North south parcels. 42
43
Nathan Robinson: Is this showing me property boundary or is this not showing me property boundary. 44
45
Eric Chupp: No, that's not showing you property boundary. That's just showing you where the open space exists. 46
This map here shows you both of the pieces in their entirety that were encompassed in the original properties, the two 47
properties owned by Woods Edge. 48
49
34
Nathan Robinson: And you're stating that the SUP applied not just to this but you're saying that the SUP applied to 1
the inclusion of this in the bottom as well. 2
3
Eric Chupp: Yes, that's what Taylor had just showed in the SUP permits. 4
5
Nathan Robinson: Taylor, that's your understanding, right? Okay. 6
7
Eric Chupp: And with the recombination, because we didn't find that map, we had no idea where the open space was. 8
And I don't think anybody did. The recombination was approved by Orange County and recorded and so what we're doing 9
here today is not only amending that by the unitary ownership, but we're making the entire parcel, the lower, unused 50 10
acres, not only will it have better and more permanent open space. But it will also allow for the fulfillment of the most 11
recent Orange County Hillsborough Collaborative Future Land Use Plan that we showed you here. That's where the cite 12
is, so all of the land use plans that are on record and the most current ones that we found for both Hillsborough and the 13
recently approved comprehensive plan indicate the use for this piece that's currently unused and then redistributing that 14
open space in a way that really conforms much better to the current UDO because we put those open spaces exactly in 15
the places where the creeks are, the steep slopes are, the hardwood trees are and providing better buffers along the 16
southern end of the property. 17
18
Beth Bronson: I think, if there's a moment, what I'm hearing Nathan ask is that when this property was resurveyed and 19
the north half of the stream was assigned or given back or retained with the Woods Edge Mobile Park Home, and still 20
managed by that entity, and then, again, purchased by, the southern parcel purchased, would that in any way have 21
violated the SUP originally. 22
23
Eric Chupp: I think it did violate the unitary ownership, and that's why as soon as we found that, which was the night 24
before our neighborhood meeting, we brought it to Orange County, and we said, this plat was recorded and actually 25
another recombination plat was recorded, how do we amend this in a way that benefits the county and the neighbors and 26
make it in conformance? So that's why we're here. And we work with the planning department to come up with an open 27
space that we're maintaining the full 25 acres and actually providing, as I said, better buffers and better protection 28
ecologically and environmentally. 29
30
Leon Meyers: Any other questions on boundary of the SUPs? 31
32
Beth Bronson: I have one quick question, and this may sound benign. The term future land use map, as stated in the 33
Town of Hillsborough's comprehensive plan; however, this area is under the jurisdiction of the county and the township, 34
so it's not actually part of this Town of Hillsborough, and it's not actually party of the Town of Chapel Hill. Not that these 35
coordinated area land use maps, the COCA agreement, the central Orange coordinated area, that is where this map is 36
from. 37
38
Eric Chupp: Right, and it's my understanding that that was, and correct me if I'm wrong, planning department please, 39
but my understanding is that that was approved by both the Orange County Commissioners and the Hillsborough 40
commissioners as a joint land use map that was passed substantially after the prior land use map that was part of the 20- 41
or 30-year-old comprehensive plan. 42
43
Beth Bronson: But to be clear, does not replace it because this is a section of the future land use map. I'm not trying to 44
split hairs, I just want to make sure that this does not represent, necessarily, the county's future land use map. This 45
represents the Central Orange County Coordinated Area land use map. 46
47
Taylor Perschau: That's correct. The COCA, the Central Orange Coordinated Area plan is one that specifically 48
applies to rezonings, within Orange County and Town of Hillsborough, and ask for a courtesy review. A special use major 49
modification did not require courtesy review, and is not really regulated by the COCA, so the Town of Hillsborough 50
35
comments that we've received are strictly that, a courtesy review. Different from the COCA, JPA in our local agreement 1
with Town of Chapel Hill and Town of Carrboro, does require a courtesy review because part of this property is within the 2
rural buffer. I wonder if, Cy, you would add any clarification to that? 3
4
Cy Stober: We received courtesy comments from Town of Chapel Hill per the JPA, and they're in your packet. 5
6
Beth Bronson: Thank you. 7
8
Cy Stober: I would only add that as constructed, and to your point, Ms. Bronson, the 20-30 comprehensive plan is 9
our adopted comprehensive plan consistent with North Carolina General Statute 160D and the plan we consult when we 10
are making plan consistency statements. To date, the COCA and the JPA are both agreements on land use that we have 11
with other jurisdictions and to date, sit outside of our comprehensive plan, but we do reference them, and we do note 12
conformity with them and consistency with them in all of our findings. 13
14
Beth Bronson: Not speaking to the credibility of these maps or the legitimacy of these maps at all. I think I want to just 15
clarify for the record that what we're talking about are these coordinated area land use plans versus the county's 16
comprehensive land use plans. Don't want them being interchanged. 17
18
Nathan Robinson: I have a quick, in relation to that, when I'm looking at the zoning right now for Orange County, it 19
shows Hillsborough zoning where the hospital is, right? And then what is, and what is this zone, then? 20
21
Taylor Perschau: This property is zoned rural residential. 22
23
Nathan Robinson: Not a mixed residential neighborhood. Is there a difference? Am I talking about two different 24
things? 25
26
Taylor Perschau: So, there have been two different things talked about tonight. The thing that it is within the 27
purview of the Orange County Board of Adjustment is the major modification to the two conditions of the existing special 28
use permit. So, that's unitary ownership and relocation of common open space. The applicant has provided the why of 29
why they are bringing this modification request to you. The why does involve requests that are not before the Board of 30
Adjustment but are, I understand, are before the town of Hillsborough. So, when you hear mixed use development, and 31
kind of the talk about the future development, those are applications not under review or even within Orange County 32
jurisdiction. Does that answer your question? 33
34
Nathan Robinson: I think so. I'm confused on a lot of things right here. 35
36
Taylor Perschau: Sure. 37
38
Nathan Robinson: I'm confused because what was presented is that this was a mixed, in the Orange, it shows a 39
mixed residential neighborhood. 40
41
Taylor Perschau: Oh, I see, on the COCA. 42
43
Nathan Robinson And the motivation for me to approve this is, is to say this is a mixed residential neighborhood, 44
therefore it's in conformance and everything. But then I hear you say it's zoned as rural residential. And I don't think, are 45
those the same, or are they different? 46
47
Taylor Perschau: Rural residential is the Orange County zoning district. 48
49
Nathan Robinson: Okay. 50
36
1
Taylor Perschau: This mixed residential neighborhood that you're seeing is a designation built within the Central 2
Orange Coordinated Area plan. 3
4
Nathan Robinson: Okay. 5
6
Taylor Perschau: Kind of to Beth's question and the discussion here with Cy, the Central Orange Coordinated 7
Area plan is not a plan upon which the Board of Adjustment is tasked to make their review. Their findings of fact, and 8
consistency for the request. Is that fair? 9
10
Leon Meyers: The staff report says that the proposal is consistent with the Orange County land plan, is that right? 11
12
Taylor Perschau: Yes, that's Orange County Future Land Use Plan, yes. 13
14
Leon Meyers: Okay. 15
16
Taylor Perschau: Comprehensive plan. 17
18
Leon Meyers: There sounds like there is some overlap with Hillsborough's Planning Authority, but that's not part of what 19
this Board has anything to do with. 20
21
Nathan Robinson: Unless it's not consistent. 22
23
Leon Meyers: I would say, even if it's not consistent. Because we have no authority to enforce somebody else's zoning. 24
Even if that were a part of the SUP. 25
26
Cy Stober: There's not a change in use. It is a modification of the special use that already exists on the land. If it 27
was a change in use, we would be considering taking it through the zoning process or a special use as required and we 28
would have to consult future land use classification as a major modification to the existing use, we are considering the 29
use as proposed for amendment. 30
31
Leon Meyers: Got it. 32
33
Cy Stober: I would also add, just to be correct, there is that portion of rural buffer zoning on the southwestern edge 34
of the property, so it is split zoned. 35
36
Nathan Robinson: Yeah, I see that as well. 37
38
Taylor Perschau: Thank you. 39
40
Leon Meyers: Anything else on zoning? Thank you, Taylor. Eric, can I ask you please to turn to the map that you 41
displayed on the screen a few minutes ago that shows the proposed buffers? That one. Is that part of your presentation 42
or part of the agenda package? 43
44
Eric Chupp: Our presentation. We submitted this to Orange County as our proposal for the, the reallocation of the 45
buffers. 46
47
Leon Meyers: The reason I ask is that we need something to define the area that you're going to agree to dedicate as 48
a conservation easement, and I think this is the only map. It's the only map that I've seen that defines that area. 49
50
37
Eric Chupp: Okay. So what can I provide for you? 1
2
Leon Meyers: Well, maybe I better ask Mr. Kuhn how, I'm going to want to include something in as a condition that 3
actually refers to a specific – 4
5
Ben Kuhn: Surveyed map. 6
7
Leon Meyers: – something that we can rely on. 8
9
Ben Kuhn: In a manner that's consistent with the map that you see on the screen and the reasonable satisfaction of 10
your planning director. That is consistent with this, what's on the screen, the surveyed map of the buffer area. 11
12
Leon Meyers: The area that you're proposing to dedicate follows some boundaries that are set already, so it's not like 13
you need a survey to define the area that you're going to dedicate. 14
15
Ben Kuhn: Yeah, and this map is fairly specific on that. I don't know that it, we need any other conditions to do that 16
survey specific. 17
18
Leon Meyers: James, are you following this conversation and are you comfortable with this map as a definition of the 19
condition for dedicating open space? 20
21
James Bryan: I was following, and I was looking to see how it was in the package. 22
23
Ben Kuhn: With a minimum of 25-acres to make it consistent. 24
25
Eric Chupp: The 25-acres is all of the open space. This is less than that. But I think one way to look at this from a 26
definition standpoint is it's, it's a 100-feet buffer along the southern portion of Scarlett Mountain Road until it hits the rural 27
buffer and then it follows the rural buffer line. That’s fairly easy to find from a survey standpoint and we would agree to 28
language such as that. 29
30
Beth Bronson: Would it be 100 feet on the eastern facing parcel as well, because the way that it just hooks up. I mean, 31
there's the Scarlett Mountain Road. 32
33
Leon Meyers: Behind the parcel that fronts on 86 there, Eric? You see that? 34
35
Eric Chupp: Yes, yes, that's included. 36
37
Beth Bronson: As 100 foot on the west side, on the south side, and I guess that would be the north side. 38
39
Leon Meyers: That's 100 feet along Scarlett Mountain Road and 100 feet along the adjacent parcel that fronts on 86, 40
is that right? 41
42
Eric Chupp: Yes, that's 100 feet. It turns up there as well. 43
44
Leon Meyers: Okay. Any other Board members' questions for the applicant before we take this before the Board? 45
46
Ben Kuhn: And before you do, I just want one housekeeping matter to, a motion to admit our documentary evidence 47
that has not already been admitted into evidence, including the amendment, the SUP amendment application and all the 48
documents associated with that. The Exhibit B, SUP modification narrative, the resumes and CVs of our expert witnesses, 49
the PowerPoint presentation slides, the market study by Mr. Jarvis Martin, all the testimony, of course, of our experts and 50
38
the staff report and evidence including the attachments, I think 1 to 6, to their report. Is that right? All of that to be 1
admitted into evidence. 2
3
Leon Meyers: Anybody have any concerns about the meeting minutes as evidence? 4
5
Beth Bronson: Would we be also admitting the meeting minutes from 1990, that original SUP? That's what you're asking 6
about? 7
8
Ben Kuhn: That would be as well. All the documentation and that has been presented to you during this hearing, 9
and I did not reference that, so that should be included as well. 10
11
Leon Meyers: Good. Thanks for that. Good. Without objection, those documents are admitted. 12
13
Ben Kuhn: Thank you. 14
15
Leon Meyers: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant before we bring this before the Board? Okay, then, am I 16
meant to close the public hearing? Is that right? 17
18
Beth Bronson: I was going to say, before I make a motion to close the public hearing, I just wanted to kind of reapproach 19
now that it's close to 10:00. 20
21
Leon Meyers: Yeah, it is time to deal with that. Board members, it sounds like we're close here. Want to think about 22
extending the meeting for half an hour until sometime specific? I'm ready to hear a motion. 23
24
Beth Bronson: I would make a motion to extend the public hearing to the next meeting. 25
26
Leon Meyers: Extend the meeting in the right language, yeah. 27
28
Beth Bronson: The first step I think is to extend the meeting. You want it 30 minutes? 29
30
Leon Meyers: Yeah, or maybe just say 10:30, how about that? You okay with that? 31
32
Beth Bronson: Yeah. 33
34
Leon Meyers: Is that a motion? 35
36
Beth Bronson: I will make a motion to extend the meeting to 10:30. 37
38
Greg Niemiroski: Second 39
40
Leon Meyers: Any discussion on the motion to extend the meeting to 10:30? All in favor, please say aye. 41
42
MOTION made by Beth Bronson. Seconded by Greg Niemiroski 43
VOTE Unanimous 44
45
Leon Meyers: None opposed. We're extended. Now, time to close the public hearing, I guess. 46
47
Beth Bronson: Now when we close the public hearing, questions back to the applicant would not be allowed. 48
49
39
Leon Meyers: We would need, if I remember James's previous advice correctly, we would need to reopen the public 1
hearing at that point. 2
3
Beth Bronson: Okay. So, I need to make a motion that we would extend the public hearing. 4
5
Leon Meyers: Well, we extended the meeting, which includes the public hearing. I think we're okay on time. 6
7
Beth Bronson: Okay. 8
9
Leon Meyers: But then I guess we do need to close the public hearing. 10
11
Beth Bronson: I mean if we have questions, then we have to reopen it or we can just leave it open to ask questions? 12
13
Leon Meyers: We can just continue with the Board discussion while the public hearing is open, that's fine with me. 14
15
Nathan Robinson: I would propose we do that, and then we can have a discussion. That way, we don't have to go 16
through a process of reopening. 17
18
Leon Meyers: Good. Board members, the applicant has agreed to adding a condition, and I think we have that pretty 19
well nailed down, to the four conditions that are listed on page something. 20
21
Nathan Robinson: Where is it? I have 24. 22
23
Leon Meyers: Somebody point me to the page; it lists the four public conditions. 24
25
Nathan Robinson: 145, 144. 26
27
Leon Meyers: 144, yeah. I think we have a reliable way to define the area that will be dedicated as open space. 28
29
Beth Bronson: As the fifth condition, I mean as far as the discussion about if any condition of the special use permit 30
should be held invalid or void, then the special use permit should be void in its entirety and of no effect. I guess the 31
concern that Nathan brought up about it being a breach to the special use permit in the first place would need to be 32
discussed or at least agreed upon for that condition, and I understand that staff has reviewed this and has come up with 33
their, not a recommendation. They have not provided a recommendation, but – 34
35
Nathan Robinson: Say that again. You're saying that you feel that there's a breach to the original SUP that exists 36
right now? 37
38
Beth Bronson: Correct. 39
40
Nathan Robinson: And how would you define that breach? 41
42
Beth Bronson: I would define that breach by the applicant is asking for a change or an amendment to the current special 43
use permit, right? But then in fact, it's already been invalidated by changing the amount of ownership. I would think that 44
this would not be an appropriate place to make a ruling on the open space just given that the way that the property was 45
divided up made the special use permit void. 46
47
Leon Meyers: Is that true? 48
49
Nathan Robinson: You mean from a unitary ownership standpoint? 50
40
1
Beth Bronson: From the unitary ownership standpoint, I'm just saying, and I understand staff has reviewed this, and I 2
understand that the application's being brought to the Board. 3
4
Nathan Robinson: I feel like we're getting thrown into a situation where I, and I'm in agreement with you, I'm just 5
going to say it in other words. I feel like we're getting into a situation where we're asked to review an SUP that's already 6
in violation, because there's Woods Edge up here, which is one ownership, and then there's another one here that's 7
another ownership, so that condition that exists right now is in violation of the original SUP, and who's responsible for 8
approving that, I don't know. Who was responsible for saying it was okay to separate that without checking back and 9
seeing that that was a condition of the property prior to subdivision? I mean I don't know how that stuff works legally. 10
That's not our problem right now, but I do feel like I'm presented with a situation where we're being asked to revise an 11
SUP that's already being violated by saying if we don't revise it, then we can just build this anyway. 12
13
Beth Bronson: Correct. 14
15
Nathan Robinson: And that feels weird to me. I don't know how to respond to that. First of all, I don't think you 16
could build this, the way that the SUP's written right now with this document that was illustratively driven, or written, or 17
drawn, shows a road crossing on Woods Edge property across a part of the property that you can't put a road across. 18
Leon Meyers: I don't think anybody's proposing to build that. 19
20
Nathan Robinson: This was what the presentation was. If you don't approve it, we can just build this property 21
anyway, and then we could put all the houses here, and then that would be detrimental to the neighbors. And so in order 22
to address that, because we could build this road, the proposal was that we'll put, there's already a rural buffer here, so 23
you couldn't exactly do that because there's a rural buffer down here anyway, but we'll put a rural buffer here that's 100 24
feet here and then up into the rural buffer this area. I don't know how to make a decision on this, when we're in violation 25
already of the SUP. I honestly don't know how do we legally do that? 26
27
James Bryan: You're asking about how you can do that legally, and you're looking at me, so I'll go ahead and throw in 28
my 2 cents. 29
30
Nathan Robinson: I'm just a dumb engineer. You have the legal stuff. 31
32
James Bryan: So, there's been some speculation about that the current SUP has been violated. That has not been the 33
subject of an enforcement today. That would be the responsibility of the county, and they may do that in the future. They 34
may not do that. That's really not relevant to this decision, because what you're looking at is the proposed changes and 35
whether that would be in harmony with the neighborhood, increase or decrease the value, those things. So, I'll tell you a 36
little bit about the precedent that this Board has, and it's usually in the form of variances. You'll have a property owner 37
who comes and they're non-conforming. They said, oh, I built the shed, and I didn't realize I needed permits. I didn't 38
know I needed a whole new rezoning. So, they come in, and they are in violation, and they're asking for the variance, and 39
the variance has specific standards. It says is there something particular to your property? Is this going to harm your 40
neighbors? Then this Board looking at that will say yes or no for that. If they say yes, it stays up. If they say no, then they 41
have to tear it down. The one little wrinkle to this is that the form that we've all been discussing is this unity of ownership, 42
and there was some argument from the applicant at the beginning that that may not be enforceable, so it's not really 43
before this Board, but if you're just trying to wrap your head around it, it might have been a case where it should never 44
have been a standard, a condition put on. You might imagine a scenario where a Board in Carolina Town meets at 11:00 45
at night. They're tired. They're tacking on conditions at the end of the meeting, and something gets on that maybe 46
shouldn't. We normally think of SUPs as running with the land, and we usually are agnostic to ownership of it, so it doesn't 47
matter whether it's McDonald's owning this or not. It's whether it's a restaurant. It doesn't matter if it's McDonald's or 48
Hardee's. We usually only look at the property use, not the ownership. That is sort of just taken for granted. There's not 49
a lot of case law on that. Really, the only case law about ownership is with spot zoning, and that's really, really peculiar 50
41
and odd. So, my advice is to not get hung up on that and focus on whether the proposal meets the requirements of being 1
in harmony with the plans, property value, those things. 2
3
Leon Meyers: The minutes were very helpful for me on that, because I believe the intent of applying that condition was 4
to be sure that the proper buffers didn't get changed somewhere along the line, and here they are changed, but the 5
applicant would say for the better. 6
7
Nathan Robinson: Yeah, I mean the way it was written that a title lawyer won't pass the title to someone who would 8
think they could buy this open land, open space. It could only be changed with governmental action. I guess the question 9
then is, is what's being proposed consistent with the motivation of continuing to be open land, and when we say open 10
land, what was your intent of that? Was it to lock up the land? Was it for people to use it? What was the intention of 11
that? 12
13
Jeff Scott: It appears that the amendment or the change of moving it was to further utilize the land in a different 14
configuration. So this is a continuation of that same idea. 15
16
Leon Meyers: Anything else? 17
18
Beth Bronson: I have no other question about that. I mean I do find it very odd. 19
20
Nathan Robinson: Yeah, I just find it odd. I just feel like error on top of error is never- 21
22
Beth Bronson: It feels weird. I'm just in the same vein of not wanting to inadvertently set any kind of precedent about 23
the way that special use permits are interpreted, or historical special use permits are interpreted, I think is my concern, 24
and I would need more time to review the material, I think, in order to make a decision based on the finding of fact, 25
because there is so much evidence. 26
27
Leon Meyers: You need more information, or you just need to reflect on it? 28
29
Beth Bronson: Yeah, I would need more time to reflect on that to understand that the finding of fact that there is 30
consistency with the UDO and the comprehensive plan and the way that would be changed. 31
32
Leon Meyers: Well, I think we have lots of evidence that that it is consistent with the UDO in the record. 33
34
Beth Bronson: And I'm saying I need time to review that. I mean again, at the same time, I'm not saying that it's not. I 35
guess my concern is setting the precedent that we're, just again, changing a special use, or issuing a special use permit 36
for something that's being done retroactively, but also that is in line with plans that are not actually in this application? I 37
guess it's all just very, very piece meal, and so I'm just not understanding the need to do a special use permit adjustment 38
to reallocate the 25 acres if the intention is actually to have the 25 acres of hundreds of acres saved for green space or 39
open space I mean. So again, I'm not, and I'm not trying to bring in any kind of discussion that's not before the Board. 40
I'm just having a hard time understanding why it is consistent if the intent is to dramatically change the existing setup of 41
the parcels and the zoning and the intent. 42
43
Leon Meyers: Well, the parcels are already changed, so that's not a question before the Board tonight, right? 44
45
Beth Bronson: The parcels are already changed to what? 46
47
Leon Meyers: The parcels have changed from their configuration in 1991, when this special use permit was approved, 48
to today, and there was a change that went through the county process and got approved. 49
50
42
Beth Bronson: And there are multiple other parcels involved in that. 1
2
Leon Meyers: Right. Then a motion would be in order, Board members, regarding findings, and the findings are on 3
page, somebody help me here. 4
5
Beth Bronson: The findings for us? 6
7
Nathan Robinson: 144 and 145. 8
9
Leon Meyers: 144 is conditions, I think. 10
11
Nathan Robinson: It's numbered as 144. 12
13
Beth Bronson: It's Page 187. 14
15
Nathan Robinson: It's 145 in the pdf. Oh, that's conditions. Is it conditions what you just said? 16
17
Leon Meyers: I'm getting there. 18
19
Nathan Robinson: It's listed Page 144, but it's 145 in the pdf. 20
21
Taylor Perschau: Standards examined, and evidence received, if that's what you're looking for. 22
23
Leon Meyers: 259, I believe, right? 24
25
Taylor Perschau: Yes, and findings of fact starting on 263. 26
27
Leon Meyers: 263, so the first step in making a decision on this application would be to approve the findings of fact that 28
begin on Page 263. Do I hear a motion on that matter? 29
30
Beth Bronson: So, I would make a motion that the findings of fact are consistent with the applicant's request. 31
32
Leon Meyers: So that would be to approve the findings of fact beginning on Page 263? Do I hear a second to that 33
motion? 34
35
Jeff Scott: Second. 36
37
Leon Meyers: Any discussion on the approval of the findings of fact? All in favor, please say aye. 38
39
MOTION made by Beth Bronson. Seconded by Jeff Scott 40
VOTE: Unanimous 41 42
Leon Meyers: None opposed. The findings are approved. The next step would be to approve the conclusions on Page 43
265. Any questions or do I hear a motion to approve conclusions? 44
45
Jeff Scott: I make a motion that we approve conclusions. Page 265. 46
47
Leon Meyers: Second there? 48
49
Beth Bronson: I mean, again, I have, my only question about the conclusions of – 50
43
1
Leon Meyers: We'll see if we can get a second for the motion here, Beth, before we discuss. 2
3
Beth Bronson: Yeah, you go ahead. 4
5
Nathan Robinson: I'm struggling to get there. I don't think we've talked about the preservation of the rural character. 6
7
Leon Meyers: Nathan, hold on a second. See if we can get a second on this motion. Jeff's motion is to approve the 8
conclusions that are listed on Page 265. Anybody seconding there? 9
10
Greg Niemiroski: Second. 11
12
Leon Meyers: Okay. Now Beth, I think you were first with a comment on the motion. 13
14
Beth Bronson: My comment on the motion would have to do with, sorry, I lost my train of thought. If anybody wanted to 15
come back to me, that's okay. 16
17
Leon Meyers: Okay. Nathan. 18
19
Nathan Robinson: The motion on the table is to approve the conclusions, correct? I'm not convinced that the 20
proposal actually maintains the chunk of land in the way it was originally intended. I think putting strips along the highway 21
and stuff like that isn't really going to do anything for wildlife. I’ve seen before the standards for protecting those kinds of 22
things. I think the intention was to have a big chunk of land. If this were modified in such a way that it could be 23
demonstrated as more consistent with a block of land in a place, I would probably be happier with it, but that's where I 24
am. I know that it's got all the creeks where it's not developable anyway, which I understand. 25
26
Leon Meyers: Okay. Any other discussion on the motion? 27
28
Beth Bronson: I remembered what I was going to comment. My comment to these, to the conclusions, would be that, I 29
want to make sure that I say this concisely, so it does not get confusing. The various layers that are not into consideration 30
would not necessarily be in line with these conclusions because these conclusions are only speaking to the 25 acres of 31
open space. Is that correct? 32
33
Leon Meyers: And the ownership, yes. 34
35
Beth Bronson: And the ownership? Now again, we get back to that whole idea of the unity of ownership versus where 36
that be contested here versus in a different authority, right? I'm not convinced that that's within our purview to be able to 37
do that. There needs to be more delivery of determination on that prior to me feeling comfortable about making this 38
decision. 39
40
Greg Niemiroski: So, if I'm reading this is that we are looking at what is found on the UDO, correct? Based on 41
these conclusions is that I'm just kind of reading letter of the law is that if these things that we have issues with, the 42
boundaries or the unity, it seems a little bit separate than what these conclusions are. Is that right? 43
44
Nathan Robinson: I think Conclusion No. 4, I'm not convinced that this preserves the rural character, that space for 45
outdoor recreation. I don't quite see how this configuration achieves that in the same way that their original SUP does. 46
47
Leon Meyers: I don't believe we have any testimony of wildlife, but there is material in the agenda package that 48
addresses that in a positive way, I believe, and we did hear testimony regarding the nature of the new buffer configuration 49
and the fact that it more nearly addresses what the UDO is looking for in terms of buffer configuration. Any other discussion 50
44
on the motion to approve the conclusions listed on Page 265? No further discussion. I'll ask for everyone in favor to 1
please say aye. Aye. 2
3
Greg Niemiroski: Aye. 4
5
Jeff Scott: Aye. 6
7
Leon Meyers: Opposed? 8
9
Nathan Robinson: No. 10
11
Beth Bronson: We need to close the public hearing first. 12
13
Leon Meyers: We didn't close the public hearing, but I don't think that has anything to do with the motion that's on the 14
floor I don't think. 15
16
Beth Bronson: Okay, sorry. I apologize. 17
18
Leon Meyers: The votes again. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. And opposed were two, right? 19
MOTION made by Jeff Scott. Seconded by Greg Niemiroski. 20
VOTE: 3-2 (Nathan Robinson and Beth Bronson opposed) 21
22
Leon Meyers: Then the final thing that we need to do would be to issue the special use permit based on the findings 23
and on the conclusions that were just approved. Do I hear a motion to issue the special use permit? 24
25
James Bryan: And if I may, with the conditions. 26
27
Leon Meyers: Thank you, James. That is something we need to address, so it would be a motion to issue the special 28
use permit with the conditions listed on Page 144, plus the added condition that the applicant will dedicate the open space 29
as shown on the exhibit in the applicant's presentation tonight, and that is specifically the open space on the south side 30
of Scarlett Springs, 100 feet parallel to Scarlett Springs – 31
32
Nathan Robinson: Scarlett Mountain. 33
34
Leon Meyers: – 100 feet parallel to the adjacent property line and from that point following the rural buffer line to I-40. 35
36
Cy Stober: Am I permitted to speak at this point? 37
38
James Bryan: I would say if there's no objection. 39
40
Beth Bronson: No, no objection. 41
42
Cy Stober: Just a point of clarification. I believe you're referring to Scarlett Mountain Drive. 43
44
Leon Meyers: Scarlett Mountain Drive. Sorry. Motion would be in order to approve the special use permit with the 45
conditions listed on Page 144 and the added condition of dedicating open space on the parcel side adjacent to Scarlett 46
Mountain Road. Do I hear a motion to that effect? 47
48
Beth Bronson: And are you including the corridor to 40 or no? 49
50
45
Leon Meyers: No. It is the area that's shaded on this map. 1
2
Beth Bronson: Only the one that they've indicated. Okay. 3
4
Leon Meyers: Do I hear a motion to that effect? 5
6
Beth Bronson: So again, I would have to make a motion to – I don't feel comfortable making a motion because I don't 7
have enough information – 8
9
Leon Meyers: I understand. 10
11
Beth Bronson: – how I would like to proceed or how I would describe my concerns with it or if there should be any other 12
conditions on that special use permit, and that said, I'm not going to bring forth a motion to approve. 13
14
Leon Meyers: Right. Understood. Anybody have questions? It seems like the next step would be a motion to approve. 15
16
Jeff Scott: I would say that I'm inclined to make the motion to approve. I think that from your comments, Beth, and 17
then the commentary that Nathan has is that there is confusion about that boundary line, but I think that Mr. Bryan was 18
helped in clarifying that, and I think part of the issue, too, is that there is a lot of information here about something that 19
we're making determination on, so that makes things more confusing in the sense of we're trying to make this decision 20
on the SUP and the unity issue, and from what I've seen is that it meets that. I understand the concerns that you've got, 21
Nathan and Beth, but I don't see it holding up making a motion. 22
23
Nathan Robinson: There's no offense. Just this is where I am. 24
25
Jeff Scott: No, I get it. 26
27
Leon Meyers: So was that a motion to approve with the conditions, the four listed conditions. 28
29
Jeff Scott: Yes. would make a motion to approve with the conditions as noted. 30
31
Leon Meyers: Okay. And is there a second to that motion? Motion on the floor is to approve the special use permit 32
based on the findings of fact and the conclusions that the Board has already approved with the four conditions listed in 33
the agenda package plus the additional condition related to dedicating open space. Just need a second to that motion. 34
35
Beth Bronson: I second that motion. 36
37
Leon Meyers: Okay. And discussion on the motion? No discussion. Then all in favor of issuing the special use permit 38
as the motion describes, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? 39
40
MOTION made by Jeff Scott to approve. Seconded by Beth Bronson 41 VOTE: 3-2 (Nathan Robinson and Beth Bronson opposed) 42
43
Leon Meyers: Motion carries three to two. We have one other item on the agenda that I skipped over at the beginning, 44
and that is- 45
46
Cy Stober: Mr. Chair. Could you close the public hearing, please? 47
48
Leon Meyers: Sorry. Motion to close the public hearing. 49
50
46
Jeff Scott: Second. 1
2
Leon Meyers: All in favor, please say aye. 3
4
MOTION made by Greg Niemiroski. Seconded by Jeff Scott. 5
VOTE: Unanimous 6
7
Leon Meyers: Okay, the hearing's closed. Yes, Pat? 8
9
Pat Mallett: Thank you. Still need to do the minutes. 10
11
Leon Meyers: I'm on it. Right. The minutes are in the agenda package from the – what meeting is this? December, I 12
believe. 13
14
Beth Bronson: December of '23. 15
16
Leon Meyers: December, right. The planning meeting on December 13th. Any questions or concerns about the 17
minutes? If not, a motion to approve would be in order. 18
19
Greg Niemiroski: So moved. 20
21
Leon Meyers: Second? 22
23
Nathan Robinson: Second. 24
25 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES – 26
27
Leon Meyers: Any discussion on approval of the minutes? All in favor, please say aye. 28
29
MOTION made by Greg Niemiroski. Seconded by Nathan Robinson. 30
VOTE: Unanimous 31
32
Leon Meyers: None opposed. Motion carries. Patrick or Cy, anything else the Board needs to handle tonight? 33
34
Cy Stober: No, you should have received an email from me earlier today. If you didn't, please let me know because 35
I don't have your current email address. Just notifying you of a reception to honor Bonnie Hammersley, as she retires on 36
June 4th, it'll be in this room. 37
38
Leon Meyers: Thank you. 39
40
Cy Stober: Please join us. 41
42
Leon Meyers: Wonderful. Pat? 43
44
Pat Mallett: We typically have this ebb and flow with the meetings. We don't have anything planned for June. We 45
definitively have an agenda with at least two items for July. 46
47
Leon Meyers: Okay. Good. 48
49
Nathan Robinson: I won't be, what date is July? Is it the 2nd? Is it the 1st or the 2nd? 50
47
1
Beth Bronson: 2nd. 2
3
Nathan Robinson: The 17th. 4
5
Beth Bronson: Because of the 4th. Thank you for clarifying that. 6
7
Pat Mallett: Yeah, we have planning board conflict and the holiday. 8
9
Leon Meyers: We are adjourned. Thank you, folks. 10
11
Beth Bronson: Do we need to change the calendar or are we good? 12
13
Leon Meyers: Does the Board need to vote to change the July meeting? 14
15
Cy Stober: Yes, because it's a rules of procedure matter, and we've established the second Wednesday as your 16
meeting date. Yes, please vote to move the date. One moment, though. James is checking his calendar. 17
18
James Bryan: Yeah, I'll be out of the state July 17th. That week. 19
20
Pat Mallett: We could move it to the right. 21
22
Beth Bronson: To the 24th? Or 16th? 23
24
Nathan Robinson: I can't do the 10th. I'm going to be in South Africa the first 2 weeks in July. 25
26
Cy Stober: Great, we can't do the 10th anyway. We have a planning board meeting that night. 27
28
Beth Bronson: The 24th? 29
30
Cy Stober: Sure, why not? 31
32
Nathan Robinson: 24th I'm good with. 33
34
Leon Meyers: Is everybody okay with the 24th? 35
36
Beth Bronson: Okay, I would make a motion to update the July meeting to the 24th of July. 37
38
Leon Meyers: Is there a second to Beth's motion? 39
40
Nathan Robinson: Second. 41
42
Leon Meyers: All right. And any discussion on the motion to change the time? All in favor, please say aye. 43
44
MOTION made by Beth Bronson 45
VOTE: Unanimous 46
47
Leon Meyers: None opposed. The motion carries. Now what else do we need to do? 48
49
Pat Mallett: That's it. Turn the lights off. 50
48
1
Leon Meyers: Thank you. We're adjourned again. 2
3
AGENDA ITEM 6: ADJOURNMENT 4
The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 p.m. 5
6
7
8
9 _________________________________________ 10
LEON MEYERS, CHAIR 11
49
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
EVIDENTIARY HEARING
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: July 24, 2024
Action Agenda
Item No. A-3-24
SUBJECT: Special Use Permit major modification request to an approved Special Use
Permit for a Care Facility at PIN 0801-13-1208 located at 735 Erwin Road, Chapel Hill
Township.
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1.Application Package, including Site Plan
and Supplemental Materials
2.Staff Report
3.Neighborhood Information Meeting
(NIM) Materials
4.Notification Materials and Certification
5. Project Correspondence and
Development Advisory Committee
Comments
6.Findings of Fact
Ashley Moncado, Planner III, 919-245-2589
Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director, 919-245-2577
PURPOSE: To hold a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing, receive sworn testimony and evidence,
and take action on a Special Use Permit 24-0009 (hereafter “SUP”) application proposing a major
modification to a previously approved SUP for Childs Pace Properties, LLC. The original SUP
was approved in 2002 (Attachment 2). The request includes one parcel located at 735 Erwin
Road, within the Chapel Hill Township, in accordance with the following Unified Development
Ordinance provisions:
•Section 2.7: Special Use Permits;
•Section 5.2: Table of Permitted Uses;
•Section 5.3.2: Application of Use Standards – Special Uses; and
•Section 5.8.2: Care Facilities.
BACKGROUND: On April 17, 2024, a Special Use Permit application (Attachment 1) was
received to allow for an increase in enrollment at the existing day care facility (Use #19, Table of
Permitted Uses) located on a +/- 5.48-acre parcel. As detailed within the application, the permit
would allow for up to 46 children and 10 staff members. The Staff Report in (Attachment 2)
contains additional information, maps, and staff analysis.
Basic Review Process: A Special Use Permit application requires submission of a site plan and
other documents, in accordance with Section 2.7.3 of the UDO:
•FIRST ACTION – Staff Review/Analysis Begins
50
STAFF COMMENT: An analysis of the application was made by qualified
representatives of the County and other agencies or officials.
•SECOND ACTION – Applicant holds a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM).
STAFF COMMENT: The NIM was held on May 20, 2024, at 5:30 p.m. at Orange
County Main Library, 137 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough. Summary meeting
materials are contained in Attachment 3.
•THIRD ACTION – Development Advisory Committee Review/Analysis Begins
STAFF COMMENT: The Orange County Development Advisory Committee
(DAC) met on May 2, 2024, to review this application. The DAC had no objections
to the approval of the Special Use Permit so long as the items in the attached
departmental memos (Attachment 5) are addressed.
•FOURTH ACTION – The Board of Adjustment holds a quasi-judicial hearing, hears
factual evidence and sworn testimony presented at an evidentiary hearing, and then
makes a determination with findings of fact supported by competent, substantial, and
material evidence.
STAFF COMMENT: The evidentiary hearing is anticipated to be held on July 24,
2024.
A formal application is required as part of a Special Use Permit request and has been submitted
(Attachment 1). Approval of the application is part of the Special Use Permit process and shall
include making appropriate Findings of Fact stating that the Board of Adjustment concludes all
applicable standards have been met.
Public Notification(s): In accordance with Section 2.7.6 of the UDO, notices of the Evidentiary
Hearing were mailed via first class mail to all adjacent property owners of the subject parcel.
These notices were mailed on July 10, 2024, 14 days before the meeting. Staff also posted the
property with signs on July 9, 2024, 15 days before the meeting. See Attachment 4 for the
notification materials.
Planning Director’s Comments: The Planning Director has determined the application satisfies
established submittal requirements, and there is sufficient documentation demonstrating general
compliance with established development standards as detailed in Section 5.8.2 of the UDO;
Staff does not make a formal recommendation on the approval of the application or on the
compliance of the project with the general standards in Section 5.3.2(A)(2). The Board of
Adjustment must determine if:
(a)The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, if
located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as
submitted;
(b)The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a
public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of
contiguous property); and
(c)The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will
be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance
with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these
51
regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners.
In addition, the Board shall make findings certifying that the application is compliant with the
following specific standards:
(1)Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined
within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO.
(2)Section 5.3.2(B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of:
a.Sewage disposal facilities, solid waste, and water;
b.Police, fire, and rescue squad protection;
c.Vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site; and
d.Other use specific standards as set forth.
(3)Specific regulations governing the development of Care Facilities as set forth in
Section 5.8.2 of the UDO.
Per Section 2.7.11(A) of the UDO, The Board of Adjustment may impose such reasonable
conditions upon approval of a Special Use as will afford protection of the public health, safety,
and general welfare, ensure that substantial justice is done, and equitable treatment provided.
52
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Orange County Planning & Inspections Department
131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278
919-245-2575 or planningapps@orangecountvnc.gov
Special Use Permit Application
Please check all applicable boxes and complete the required documentation. Additional information and submittal
requirements are contained in Section 2.7 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
If completing by hand, please use black or blue ink.
* Please fill out all required fields
The Orange County Board of Adjustment shall approve or deny Special Use Permit applications as provided for within the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) with a majority vote. The applicant must provide material, competent, and substantial evidence for each standard required by the UDO. Please
check all applicable boxes and complete the required documentation.
Date: 14/12/2024 I
[ Contact Information*
Property Owner{s): !CHILDS PACE PROPERTIES, LLC
Mailing Address: 1114 YEARGEN PL CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516
Phone: 1919-265-7809 I Email: lerwinroadms@gmail.com
Appl~a~~~~re~fua~n~p~~~~~e~~~o=w~M:rc):~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mailing Address: I
Phone: I Email: ... 1 -------------
Property Information*
Parcel ID Number PIN : 080 11 3 1208
Address: 735 Erwin Road Durham, NC 27707
Certification and Signatures*
watershed: Jordan Lake Unprotected
I, !Patricia Nervo I. have standing as described in Exhibit A and hereby
request the Board of Adjustment to conduct an evidentiary hearing on my permit application, a use
described, and limited as described, in Exhibit B. I anticipate the presentation of evidence to be:
0 Thirty (30) minutes or less, and understand Exhibits C, D, E and F are optional.
D More than thirty (30) minutes and have included the following:
• A listing of intended evidence (Exhibit C),
• Proposed Findings of Fact (Exhibit D),
• Proposed Conditions (Exhibit E), and
• Proposed Order (Exhibit F).
STATEMENT BY APPLICANT: I certify that the information presented by me in this application is
accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
l:r~
Owner Signature(s) Applicant Signature (if different from owner)
Date Date
Page 1of9
J
Attachment 1 53
Exhibit A -Statement of Standing*
0 I am the sole owner of the property subject to this application.
DI have attached notarized letters authorizing this submittal from all entities or individuals with
ownership rights to the property.
Property Owner Information
Name: !CHILDS PACE PROPERTIES, LLC
Address: 1114 YEARGEN PL CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516
.J
HomePhone~:~l----------------------------------------------------------------c
Cell Phone: 1919-265-7809
Email: lerwinroadms@gmail.com
Applicant Information 0 Same as owner
Name: I.....,. ________________________________________________________ __
Address:l---..--------------------------------------------------------1 HomePhone~:~l--------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Ph;.::o.:.:.:ne::.:.:_..l ______________________________________________________ ----i
Email:!-------------------------------
Agent Information
Name: I.....,. ________________________________________________________ __
Address:l---..--------------------------------------------------------1 HomePhone~:~l--------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Ph;.::o.:.:.:ne::.:.:_..l ______________________________________________________ ----i
Email: I ____ .,... __________________ ....... _____ ___, __________________ __
Law Firm Name: l..._ __________ ..... I Bar Number:!..._ __________ .....
Note: Only attorneys may serve as agents during quasi-judicial hearings. Realtors, surveyors and other professionals may
not a ~ly or make arguments on behalf of owners.
Exhibit B -Narrative of Proposed Land Use*
Insert and label as "Exhibit B" a narrative description of the proposed land use. Include a detailed
description of the proposed use of property, including an outline of the proposed operational
characteristics of the proposed development. Also, include descriptions of structural components such
as the basic size, form, and character of the buildings shown on the site plan.
Page 2of9
54
Exhibit C -Intended Evidence*
I Intend to Introduce the following document and have attached It follows:
Exhibit #1 entitled: lsee attachments --------------------------------------------..... ------------!
This is relevant to standards from Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Sections: I
I
Intend to call the following as a lay witness:
Lay Witness #1: ._n_o_ne--------------------------------------.....,~------------....i
Their intended testimony has been included in an affidavit attached as Exhibit: --------
This witness has oersonal knowledae of and will testifv about:
This testimony is relevant to standards from UDO Sections: I
The testimonv will demonstrate that:
Intend to call the following as an expert witness:
Expert Witness #1 : ... ls_e_e_a_tt_ac_h_m_e_n_ts ____________________________________________ _
lls being offered as an expert in:
They reviewed or examined the following data: __________________ _
Page 3of9
J
55
Thev used the followina method of analvsis when reviewina that data:
This expert opinion is relevant the standard at UDO Section:.._ I _____________ _.
It demonstrates that:
Their intended testimony has been included in an affidavit attached as Exhibit:..._ I ______ __,
(attach additional sheets as necessary)
Page 4of9
56
Exhibit D -Proposed Findings of Fact*
The Applicant shall be required to provide the proposed findings of fact for the project based on the
specific development standards for a proposed land use as detailed in Article 5 of the UDO as well as
th I fi d' ta" d . S ct" 5 3 2 f th UDO e genera in 1ngs as con me 1n e ion .. 0 e
UDO SUPPORTING
# REQUIREMENT EVIDENCE Condition# Section (finding of Fact)
Application Components and Required Submittal Information:
1. Proper forms 2.2 Provided
2. Fees paid 2.2.4(D) Delivered Separately
Full description of use Included in Exhibit B
• Location and on the site plan 3. 2.7.3(8)(1) • Appearance
• Operational characteristics
4. Owner Information 2.7.3(8)(2) Exhibit A
5. Information needed for Use 2.7.3(8)(3) Shown on Site Plan
Standards
6. Site Plans 2.7.3(8)(4) Provided
7. List of parcels within 1,000 feet 2.7.3(8)(5) Provided
8. Elevations of all structures 2.7.3(8)(6) N/A, None new propose1~
9. Environmental Assessment (or 2.7.3(8)(7) Provided
EIS)
10. Method of Debris Disposal 2.7.3(8)(8) Shown on Site Plan
11. Development Schedule 2.7.3(8)(9) Exhibit G
12. Extended Vesting Request 2.7.3(8)(10) None requested
Notification Requirements:
Public Notice 2.7.6(A) Shall occur after
• Date application is filed 13. • Time and accepted
• Place
14. Sign Posting on Property (at least 2.7.6(A)(2) See above
1 O davs prior)
Mailed Notice 2.7.6(A)(1)
• Certified mail
15. • All adjacent property owners See above
(within 1,000 feet)
• Not less than fifteen davs prior
Specific Standards:
Waste Disposal 5.3.2(8)(1) Provided in site plan
16. Method and adequacy of provision and EA. Testimony
for sewage disposal facilities, solid shall be provided ar
waste and water service. hearing confirming this
Safety 5.3.2(8)(2) Provided in site plan.
17. Method and adequacy of police, fire Testimony shall be
and rescue squad protection. provided ar hearing
Page 5of9 conf1rmmg this
57
Vehicle Access 5.3.2(8)(3) Provided in site plan.
18. Method and adequacy of vehicle
access to the site and traffic
conditions around the site.
Specific Development Standards for Proposed Land Use (Article 5)*:
Provided in site plan.
*The applicant is responsible for completing this section, identifying all development
requirements/standards a proposed land use is required to abide by, and provide sufficient detail
documenting what evidence has been submitted documenting compliance. An application shall be
"d d . I t "th t th d F d" f F ct I t d b th I" t cons1 ere mcomp1e ew1 OU e propose m In! so a comp1e e 1y e app 1can
SUPPORTING
General Standards UDO Section EVIDENCE Condition#
(Finding of Fact)
The use will maintain or 5.3.2(A)(2)(a) Provided in site plan.
promote the public Testimony shall be
health, safety and provided ar hearing
general welfare confirming this
The use will maintain or 5.3.2(A)(2)(b) Provided in site plan.
enhance the value of Testimony shall be
contiguous property provided ar hearing
(unless the use is a confirming this
public necessity)
The use will be in 5.3.2(A)(2)(c) Provided in site plan.
harmony with the area Testimony shall be
and is in compliance with provided ar hearing
the Comprehensive Plan. confirming this
Page 6of9
58
Exhibit E -Proposed Conditions•
The Board of Adjustment must deny the permit if any standard cannot be met either by a
showing of evidence or by a condition placed upon the permit. Staff has included the general
conditions required for all Special Use Permits, as detailed within the UDO.
Please list any proposed conditions which may be necessary for the Board of Adjustment to find
that all standards will be met.
1. For public safety as required in 5.3.2(8)(2) of the UDO, final assignment of a street address shall be
completed by Orange County Land Records prior to the issuance of any permit authorizing land
disturbing activity on the property in accordance with the Orange County Addressing Ordinance.
2. Per Section 2.5 of the UDO, the applicant shall obtain all necessary development permits from the
County prior to the initiation of any land disturbing activity associated with the construction of the
proposed use including, but not limited to: Building Permit, Land Disturbance Permit (LOP), Solid
Waste Management Permit, and Zoning Compliance Permit.
3. In accordance with the provisions of Section 2. 7 .11 (C) of the UDO, if any condition of this Special
Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special Use Permit shall be void in its entirety and
of no effect.
4. In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.11 (D) of the UDO, the Special Use Permit will
automatically expire within 12 months from the date of approval if the use has not commenced or
construction has not commenced or proceeded unless a timely application for extension of this time
limit is approved by the Board of Adjustment.
Page 7of9
59
Exhibit F-Proposed Order:
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
Child Pace Properties, LLC (APPLICANT)
PROPOSING to expand the existing day care (PROPOSED LAND USE)
ON 735 Erwin Road Durham. NC 27707 (ROAD NAME AND PINS OF
PROPERTY INVOLVED WITH APPLICATION)
As required under Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the Orange County Unified Development
Ordinance {UDO), a Special Use Permit is required for the development/operation of a day care
(Proposed Land Use), in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7 of the UDO.
Such permits shall comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Section{s) 5.3.2 and
5.8.2 (Section of Article 5 establishing development standards for proposed land use) of the
UDO.
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO requires written findings certifying compliance with the following:
(1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located
where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted;
(2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a
public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of
contiguous property); and
(3) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be
in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the
plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the
Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners;
In addition, the Board of Adjustment shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with
the following specific standards:
(1) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined
within Section{s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO.
(2) Specific regulations governing the development of a day care {Proposed land
use) as set forth in Section 5.8.2 (Section of Article 5 establishing development
standards for proposed land use) of the UDO.
(3) Section 5.3.2 (B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of:
a. Sewage disposal facilities,
b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and
c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site.
(4) The general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2).
Page 8of9
60
Upon holding of an evidentiary hearing, and accepting into the record of competent, material evidence
and sworn testimony concerning the application, the Orange County Board Adjustment (BOA) hereby
k th i II . fi d' f t t d I . f I ma es e o owmo m mos o ac an cone us1ons o aw:
UDO SUPPORTING
# REQUIREMENT EVIDENCE Condition# Section (Finding of Fact)
Application Components and Required Submittal Information:
Notification Requirements:
Specific Standards:
Specific Development Standards for Proposed Land Use (Article 5)*
Based on the competent material evidence and sworn testimony in the record the BOA hereby make(s)
an affirmative finding on the specific standards of evaluation and general standards as detailed herein,
further finding no evidence has been entered into the record demonstrating the applicant has:
a. Failed to meet their burden of proof that the project complies with the specific development
standards for a telecommunication facility, or
b. Failed to comply with the general standards detailed within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO.
The BOA hereby approves the Special Use Permit subject to compliance with the following conditions:
(CONDITIONS HERE)
Page 9of9
61
ERWIN ROAD
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY "NC811" (811) OR (1-800-632-4949) AT
LEAST 3 FULL BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION
OR EXCAVATION TO HAVE EXISTING UTILITIES LOCATED.
CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT ANY LOCAL UTILITIES THAT PROVIDE
THEIR OWN LOCATOR SERVICES INDEPENDENT OF "NC811". REPORT
ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
DURHAM, NC 27707
735 ERWIN RD
FOR
SUBMITTAL #1 APRIL 12, 2024
N
ENGINEER CONTACT
SUMMIT DESIGN & ENGINEERING SERVICES
WILLIAM WIRT, PE
320 EXECUTIVE COURT
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
(919) 732-3883 (PHONE)
(757)621-5482 (CELL)
WILLIAM.WIRT@SUMMITDE.NET
OWNER/ APPLICANT
CHILDS PACE PROPERTIES,LLC
TRISH NERVO
114 YEARGEN PL
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516
(919)265-7809
erwinroadms@gmail.com
SITE LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE BYDATEREVISIONS132456PROJECT NO.
SHEET NO.DRAWING ALTERATIONIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OFLICENSED ARCHITECT, PROFESSIONALENGINEER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, ORLAND SURVEYOR TO ALTER ANY ITEM ONTHIS DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY. ANY LICENSEEWHO ALTERS THIS DOCUMENT IS REQUIREDBY LAW TO AFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THENOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY HISOR HER SIGNATURE AND SPECIFICDESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATIONS.PROJECT ENGINEER/ARCHITECTPROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BY7DRAWING NAME:COPYRIGHT 2024SUMMIT DESIGN ANDENGINEERING SERVICESCWRW (WILLIAM.WIRT@SUMMITDE.COM)MWP (MICK.PARKER@SUMMITDE.COM)24-0053ERWIN RD MONTESSORI SCHOOLCHAPEL HILL, NC 27707 735 ERWIN RDSPECIAL USE PERMITFIRST ISSUE DATEAG (ALEX.GARCIA@SUMMITDE.COM)04-12-2024NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
COVER SHEETC-1
24-0053_cs.dwg
ERWI
N
R
DKERLEY RDERWI
N
R
D RANDOLPH RD
SITE
MONTESSORI SCHOOL
PROJECT NOTES:
1. THIS DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ALL APPLICABLE USE STANDARDS DETAILED IN ARTICLE 5 AND ALL APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DETAILED IN ARTICLE 6 OF THE
LATEST VERSION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.
2. STREAM BUFFERS: ALL STREAMS SHALL BE DELINEATED AND PROTECTED FROM DISTURBANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORANGE COUNTY AND STATE REGULATIONS. DURING
CONSTRUCTION TREE PROTECTION FENCE AND SILT FENCE SHALL BE UTILIZED TO PROHIBIT DISTURBANCE IN THESE AREAS. AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE, THE BUFFERS AND
STREAMS SHALL REMAIN IN THEIR NATURAL STATE.
3. PERIMETER BUFFERS: THE ENTIRE PARCEL SHALL PROVIDE AN EXISTING OR PLANTED LANDSCAPE BUFFER AS REQUIRED BY ORANGE COUNTY'S UDO. EXISTING VEGETATIVE BUFFERS
SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM WELL AND SEPTIC INSTALLATION OPERATIONS WITH TREE PROTECTION FENCE AND PROPOSED LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL PROVIDE THE VEGETATIVE
LANDSCAPE DENSITY PER THE ORANGE COUNTY UDO.
4. CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS REMOVAL: ALL CLEARING AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND TRANSPORTED TO A PERMITTED LANDFILL. NO BURNING OF
CLEARING DEBRIS IS ALLOWED. DURING CONSTRUCTION WASTE SHALL BE COLLATED TO PROPER RECYCLING CATEGORIES SUCH AS PAPER/CARDBOARD/WOOD PRODUCTS, ETC.
5. TRASH/RECYCLE: THE SITE IS CURRENTLY PROVIDED TRASH SERVICE WITH GFL AND RECYCLING SERVICE WITH ORANGE COUNTY. TRASH AND RECYCLE ARE DISPOSED OF IN ROLL
CARTS AND PICKED UP ALONG ERWIN ROAD.
6. FIRE RESPONSE WILL REQUIRE 360 DEGREE ACCES AROUND ALL BUILDINGS INCLUDED IN THE SUP. NO NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION IS PROPOSED AT THIS TIME.
7. EROSION CONTROL PERMIT REQUIREMENT THRESHOLD IS 20,000 SF OF DISTURBED AREA, STORMWATER PERMIT REQUIREMENT THRESHOLD IS 21,780 SF OF BUILT UPON AREA FOR NON
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
8. THE DAY CARE FACILITY HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE 7:30 AM TO 6 PM, MONDAY - FRIDAY, 5 DAYS A WEEK.
9. THIS SUP PROPOSES TO INCREASE THE TOTAL COUNT TO 46 CHILDREN AND 10 STAFF.
10. THIS SUP CONSIDERS 2 TRIPS A DAY FOR EACH CHILD AND STAFF MEMBER FOR A TOTAL O 112 TRIPS A DAY. PICK UP TIMES ARE 12:30, 3:30, AND 5:30.
11. NO BUILDING MOUNTED OR FREESTANDING SIGNS ARE PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS SUP.
12. NO MASS GRADING IS PROPOSED WITH THIS SUP, ONLY FINE GRADING AS NECESSARY TO UPGRADE PARKING AND INSTALL NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM.
13. ALL GATES SHALL BE SELF CLOSING AND SELF LATCHING.
14.NO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SHALL BE USED AS CARE FACILITIES.
SITE INFORMATION
PARCEL ID:0801131208
DEED REFERNCE: DB 5660, PG 230
TOTAL LAND AREA:±5.54 ACRES
PROPERTY
ADDRESS:735 ERWIN ROAD DURHAM, NC27707
JURISDICTION: ORANGE COUNTY
STATE:NORTH CAROLINA
ZONING:RB - RURAL BUFFER
CURRENT USE: DAY CARE FACILITY
PROPSED USE:DAY CARE FACILITY
WATERSHED:JORDAN LAKE (UNPROTECTED)
RIVER BASIN: CAPE FEAR
DRIVEWAY: ± 263 LF
BUILDING SETBACKS:
FRONT SETBACK: 40'
SIDE SETBACK:20'
REAR SETBACK:20'
BUILDING HEIGHT MAX.:25'
REQUIRED PLAY AREA = 75 SF PER CLIENT IN CARE= 46 KIDS X 75 SF= 3,450 SF
PROVIDE - 16,000 SF
PARKING SPACES:
EXISTING 9 SPACES
REQUIRED 1 SPACE/ EMPLOYEES (10 EMPLOYEES)=10 SPACES
1 SPACE/ 5 CLIENTS (46 STUDENTS) = 9 SPACES
TOTAL= 20 SPACES
PROVIDED: 20 PARKING SPACES INCLUDING 2 HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA:
EXISTING
BUILDING 5,058 SF
GRAVEL/ASPHALT 10,247 SF
CONCRETE 2,650 SF
PROPOSED
ALL WEATHER STONE SURFACE 14,385 SF
CONCRETE 2,235 SF
TOTAL NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA : 24,328 SF (.55 AC) (9.9 % OF TOTAL LAND AREA)
NET IMPERVIOUS INCREASE = 6,373 SF
THIS SITE WILL BE SERVED BY WELL AND SEPTIC FACILITIES
Sheet List Table
Sheet Number Sheet Title Sheet Number
C-1 COVER SHEET C-1
C-2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN C-2
C-3 SITE PLAN C-3
C-4 LIGHTING PLAN C-4
SUBMITTAL #2 JUNE 7, 2024
OCSW CONSTRUCTION WASTE REQUIREMENTS:
1. ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES 500 SQUARE FEET AND LARGER SHALL BE ASSESSED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE COUNTY'S
REGULATED RECYCLABLE MATERIALS ORDINANCE (RRMO) AND TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL FOR DECONSTRUCTION AND/OR THE REUSE OF SALVAGEABLE MATERIALS. CONTACT THE
ORANGE COUNTY SW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AT 919-968-2788 TO ARRANGEFOR THE ASSESMENT.
2. PURSUANT TO THE COUNTY'S RRMO, CLEAN WOOD WASTE, SCRAP METAL, AND CORRUGATED CARDBOARD PRESENT IN CONSTRUCITON OR DEMOLITION WASTE MUST BE RECYCLED.
3. PURSUANT TO THE COUNTY'S RRMO, ALL HAULERS OF MIXED CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE WHICH INCLUDES ANY REGULATED RECYCLABLE MATERIALS SHALL BE LICENSED
BY ORANGE COUNTY.
4. PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ON THE SITE, THE APPLICANT SHALL HOLD A PRE-DEMOLITION/PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE WITH SOLID WASTE STAFF.
THIS MAY BE THE SAME PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING HELD WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT/ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.
5. THE PRESENCE OF ANY ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS ('ACM') AND/OR OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHALL BE HANDLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY AND ALL LOCAL, STATE, AND
FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES.
10'10'
4" COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
DRIVEWAY SECTION
NTS
SUBMITTAL #3 JULY 10, 2024
N:\2024\24-0053.240\Site Design\Current Drawings\24-0053_CS.dwg, C-1 COVER SHEET, 7/10/2024 4:32:54 PM, traver.bruhns, 1:162
297
30030730
8
305300300
305307
30
1
300
3
0
5 303307
306
302
299299300301304307
30
6
29
0
2
8
8293295292296302
303
3
0
5
3
0
3
293
290
293
296296302296
300298292298
308 N28° 18' 27"E 123.26'N32° 20' 41"E 60.49'N31° 36' 47"E 102.10'N40° 38' 43"W 247.79'
N39° 57' 22"W 603.33'
S
6
°
1
4
'
1
1
"W
5
4
1
.
1
6
'
S52° 13' 18
"
E
5
8
6
.
1
9
'
Slopes Table
Number
1
2
Minimum Slope
15.00%
25.00%
Maximum Slope
24.99%
100.00%
Color
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R BYDATEREVISIONS132456PROJECT NO.
SHEET NO.DRAWING ALTERATIONIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OFLICENSED ARCHITECT, PROFESSIONALENGINEER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, ORLAND SURVEYOR TO ALTER ANY ITEM ONTHIS DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY. ANY LICENSEEWHO ALTERS THIS DOCUMENT IS REQUIREDBY LAW TO AFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THENOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY HISOR HER SIGNATURE AND SPECIFICDESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATIONS.PROJECT ENGINEER/ARCHITECTPROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BY7DRAWING NAME:COPYRIGHT 2024SUMMIT DESIGN ANDENGINEERING SERVICESCWRW (WILLIAM.WIRT@SUMMITDE.COM)MWP (MICK.PARKER@SUMMITDE.COM)24-0053ERWIN RD MONTESSORI SCHOOLCHAPEL HILL, NC 27707 735 ERWIN RDSPECIAL USE PERMITFIRST ISSUE DATEAG (ALEX.GARCIA@SUMMITDE.COM)04-12-2024NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
1 inch = ft.
GRAPHIC SCALE
( IN FEET )
40 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANC-2
24-0053_xc.dwgERWIN RD SR 1734(60' PUBLIC R/W)
EXISTING FIRELANE
EXISTING WOOD
STRUCTURE
338 SF
EXISTING GRAVEL PARKING
EXISTING PLAYGROUND AREA
EXISTING CONCRETE SW
EXISTING DETERIORATING ASPHALT
DRIVEWAY
EXISTING WELL
60.00'
EXISTING DWELLING
EXISTING
LIGHT POLE
EXISTING
SEPTIC SYSTEM
EXISTING OVERHANG
EXISTING CL OF CREEK
EXISTING 4' FENCE 40' FRONT
SETBACK
20' SIDE SETBACK
2
0
'
R
EAR
SE
TBACK
20' SIDE SE
T
B
A
C
K TRIANG
LE
TOWNSH
IP
-
DURHAM
COUNTYCHAPEL
H
I
L
L
TOWNSH
IP
-ORANGE
COUNTY
1 STORY
DAY CARE
15' TALL
2070 SF
FFE: ± 308.00'
BLOCK BUILDING
BARN
2,005 SF
EXISTING WOOD
STRUCTURE
470 SF
EXISTING WOOD
STRUCTURE
175 SF
EXISTING ACCESSIBLE
PARKING W/ SIGNS
EXISTING LIGHT POLE
ROLL CARTS
TRASH AND
RECYCLING
EXISTING 60" RCP
W/ HEADWALLS
5'X50'
65' STREAM BUFFER
OFF SITE SOILS SURVEY
WATER FEATURE PER
ORANGE COUNTY SWID
DATED JULY 3, 2024
STREAM REMOVED WITHIN
SUBJECT PROPERTY
BOUNDARY PER ORANGE
COUNTY SWID DATED JULY 3, 2024
OC UPDATE WATER FEATURE
CENTERLINE PER ORANGE
COUNTY SWID DATED JULY 3, 2024
LEGEND:
EXISTING STORM PIPE
STREAM EXISTING
TP PRIMARY TREE PROTECTION AREA
N:\2024\24-0053.240\Site Design\Current Drawings\24-0053_XC.dwg, EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN, 7/10/2024 4:33:44 PM, traver.bruhns, 1:163
WELL L
OCATI
ON OHEN28° 18' 27"E 123.26'N32° 20' 41"E 60.49'N31° 36' 47"E 102.10'N40° 38' 43"W 247.79'
N39° 57' 22"W 603.33'
S
6
°
1
4
'
1
1
"W
5
4
1
.
1
6
'
S52° 13' 18
"
E
5
8
6
.
1
9
'Pumper Fire TruckPumper Fire TruckTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP TPTPTPTPTPTPTPKnow what's below.
before you dig.Call
R BYDATEREVISIONS132456PROJECT NO.
SHEET NO.DRAWING ALTERATIONIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OFLICENSED ARCHITECT, PROFESSIONALENGINEER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, ORLAND SURVEYOR TO ALTER ANY ITEM ONTHIS DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY. ANY LICENSEEWHO ALTERS THIS DOCUMENT IS REQUIREDBY LAW TO AFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THENOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY HISOR HER SIGNATURE AND SPECIFICDESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATIONS.PROJECT ENGINEER/ARCHITECTPROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BY7DRAWING NAME:COPYRIGHT 2024SUMMIT DESIGN ANDENGINEERING SERVICESCWRW (WILLIAM.WIRT@SUMMITDE.COM)MWP (MICK.PARKER@SUMMITDE.COM)24-0053ERWIN RD MONTESSORI SCHOOLCHAPEL HILL, NC 27707 735 ERWIN RDSPECIAL USE PERMITFIRST ISSUE DATEAG (ALEX.GARCIA@SUMMITDE.COM)04-12-2024NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTIONERWIN RD SR 1737(60' PUBLIC R/W)
LEGEND:
EXISTING STORM PIPE
PROPOSED STORM PIPE
1 inch = ft.
GRAPHIC SCALE
( IN FEET )
40 SITE PLANC-3
24-0053_s.dwg
5' S/W
20'9'
EXISTING WOOD
STRUCTURES
TO REMAN
EXISTING WOOD STRUCTURE
TO REMAIN
24'20' SIDE S
E
T
B
A
C
K
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
PROPOSED TREATMENT UNIT
AREA RESERVED FOR SEPTIC
DRAIN FIELD
PROPOSED WELL W/100' SETBACK
20' SIDE SETBACK
40' FRONT SETBACK100'
EXISTING ASPHALT PARKING
LOT TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED
WITH COMPACTED STONE ALL
WEATHER SURFACE
CONCRETE PAVEMENT AT (2)
ACCESSIBLE SPACES TO CONNECT
TO NEW PROPOSED SIDEWALK
EXISTING
FENCED IN PLAY
AREA TO REMAIN:
GRASS,MULCH, &
CONCRETE
(13,000 SF)
8 SPACES
EXISTING ASPHALT DRIVEWAY TO BE
REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH
COMPACTED ALL WEATHER
SURFACE
EXISTING DAYCARE
FACILITY TO REMAIN
2070 SF
PLANTING SCHEDULE
TREE PROTECTION AREA
BUFFER TYPE B - MIXED
STREET TREES
FOUNDATION PLANTINGS
LEGEND NAME DESCRIPTION
EXISTING TREES, REGARDLESS OF SIZE, SHALL NOT BE CUT OR
OTHERWISE DAMAGED OR DESTROYED. LOCATED IN FRONT, SIDE, AND
REAR YARD SETBACK AREAS, STREAM BUFFERS AND LAND USE BUFFERS
WHERE EXISTING TREES ARE PRESENT.
LOCATED AROUND DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER WHERE EXISTING TREES
ARE NOT PRESENT. PER EVERY 100 LINEAR FEET: 1 CANOPY TREE, 0
EVERGREEN TREE, 1 DECIDUOUS UNDERSTORY TREES, 2 EVERGREEN
UNDERSTORY TREES, 13 SHRUBS
LOCATED ALONG PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREET FRONTAGE. PER EVERY
65 FEET: 1 CANOPY TREE, 1 UNDERSTORY TREE (DECIDUOUS OR
EVERGREEN). CLUSTERING IS ENCOURAGED; MUST BE AT LEAST 1 TREE
FOR EVERY 100 LINEAR FEET.
VEHICLE USE AREA -
INTERIOR LANDSCAPING
ALL PARKING SPACES WITHIN 60' OF CANOPY TREE. TERMINAL ISLANDS
MUST BE AT LEAST 300 SQFT AND PLACED WHERE 1 CANOPY TREE IS
EXISTING.
EXISTING FOUNDATION PLANTINGS TO
REMAIN 20'R4
.
0
0
'
2 SPACES
EXISTING TREE
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING ROLL CARTS TO
CONTINUE TO SERVE AS SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL METHOD TRIANG
LE
TOWNSH
IP
-
DURHAM
COUNTYCHAPEL
H
I
L
L
TOWNSH
IP
-ORANGE
COUNTY20'
EXISTING FENCED IN PLAY
AREA TO REMAIN: GRASS,
MULCH, & CONCRETE
(3,000 SF)
EXISTING CL OF CREEK
2
0
'
R
E
AR
S
E
T
B
AC
K
4 SPACES
6 SPACES
9'
9'
ADA ROUTE
PICK UP AND DROP OFF AREA
12' W X 68' L
20'20'R6.00'20.00'24'BUILDING
HEIGHT=15'147.36'83.15'87.33'66.35'R35.00
'R35.00'NOTE:
1. ALL EXISTING TREES, FOUNDATION PLANTINGS, AND OTHER VEGETATION SHALL REMAIN UNDISTURBED TO COMPLY
WITH SECTION 6.8.7 (A-D) OF THE ORANGE COUNTY U.D.O.
2. MAINTAIN OR ENHANCE VEGETATION ALONG PROPERTY LINE TO COMPLY WITH SCREENING REQUIREMENTS PER
SECTION 6.8.9 OF THE ORANGE COUNTY U.D.O.
REMOVE AND
REPLACE 15" RCP
WITH SITE ACCESS
IMPROVEMENTS
CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
CONNECTION PER NCDOT STD.
DRIVEWAY APRON TO EXTEND
PAST RADIUS 20' FOR STACKING
AT ROAD ACCESS.
10'X70' SIGHT
DISTANCE TRIANGLE
192.65'29.5'
20'
EXISTING 60"
CULVERT
5'X50'
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF
ADJACENT SINGLE
FAMILY HOME
VEHICLE USE AREA -
PERIMETER BUFFER
10' MIN WIDTH. IN ADDITION TO TREES, A HEDGE OF AT LEAST THREE
FEET IN HEIGHT AT MATURITY SHALL BE INSTALLED
WHERE EXISTING VEGETATION
DOES NOT PROVIDE OPAQUE
SCREENING, SUPPLEMENT
WITH TYPE B BUFFER AS
NECESSARY.
EXISTING VEGETATION ALONG
PROPERTY STREET FRONTAGE
SHALL MEET THE STREET TREE
STANDARDS DESCRIBED ON
THIS SHEET.
TP PRIMARY TREE PROTECTION AREA25.04'65'STREAMBUFFER65'
STRE
A
M
BUFF
E
R
STREAM EXISTING
N:\2024\24-0053.240\Site Design\Current Drawings\24-0053_S.dwg, SITE PLAN, 7/10/2024 4:50:07 PM, traver.bruhns, 1:164
WELL LOCATI
O
N OHEN28° 18' 27"E 123.26'N32° 20' 41"E 60.49'N31° 36' 47"E 102.10'N40° 38' 43"W 247.79'
N39° 57' 22"W 603.33'
S
6
°
1
4
'
1
1
"W
5
4
1
.
1
6
'
S52° 13' 18
"
E
5
8
6
.
1
9
'TPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP TPTPTPTPTPTPTP0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2 4.9
5.1
3.6
7.1
9.3
7.0
3.3
9.1
10.8
5.4
1.8
0.6
6.9
10.0
14.7
9.4
3.3
1.1
0.4
4.4
9.1
9.9
8.9
4.3
1.8
0.6
0.3
0.1
2.5
5.1
7.1
5.9
4.0
2.3
0.1
0.1
1.9
3.7
5.0
5.3
4.0
2.8
0.1
0.0
1.6
3.9
5.3
5.6
5.7
4.3
0.0
1.9
5.5
8.1
8.2
8.5
7.9
4.8
2.9
6.2
11.2
12.8
14.4
11.6
9.0
3.8
0.8
2.4
6.9
15.3
17.7
16.0
5.8
1.5
0.7
1.1
3.0
9.4
14.9
18.9
14.6
11.1
8.3
0.5
1.4
6.3
11.0
14.2
12.8
10.7
5.8
3.0
6.6
9.1
7.8
6.4
3.8
1.5
1.3
3.0
5.0
5.1
3.5
2.2
0.9
0.3
0.6
1.5
2.5
3.0
2.4
1.3
1.7
1.6
1.0 0.7
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R BYDATEREVISIONS132456PROJECT NO.
SHEET NO.DRAWING ALTERATIONIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OFLICENSED ARCHITECT, PROFESSIONALENGINEER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, ORLAND SURVEYOR TO ALTER ANY ITEM ONTHIS DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY. ANY LICENSEEWHO ALTERS THIS DOCUMENT IS REQUIREDBY LAW TO AFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THENOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY HISOR HER SIGNATURE AND SPECIFICDESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATIONS.PROJECT ENGINEER/ARCHITECTPROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BY7DRAWING NAME:COPYRIGHT 2024SUMMIT DESIGN ANDENGINEERING SERVICESCWRW (WILLIAM.WIRT@SUMMITDE.COM)MWP (MICK.PARKER@SUMMITDE.COM)24-0053ERWIN RD MONTESSORI SCHOOLCHAPEL HILL, NC 27707 735 ERWIN RDSPECIAL USE PERMITFIRST ISSUE DATEAG (ALEX.GARCIA@SUMMITDE.COM)04-12-2024NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
1 inch = ft.
GRAPHIC SCALE
( IN FEET )
40 LIGHTING PLANC-4
24-0053_li.dwgERWIN RD SR 1737(60' PUBLIC R/W)
VUA
AVERAGE 5.4 FC
MAXIMUM 16.0 FC
MINIMUM 0.0 FC
A
EXISTING LIGHT
A
A
N:\2024\24-0053.240\Site Design\Current Drawings\24-0053_LI.dwg, LIGHTING PLAN, 7/10/2024 4:51:56 PM, traver.bruhns, 1:165
1 Erwin Road Montessori School Special Use Permit Application – Exhibit B Narrative The Erwin Road Montessori School, a day care facility with a Durham address of 735 Erwin Rd Durham, NC 27707 but
with the majority of the parcel located within the Orange County limits, is applying for an updated SUP. The school is
currently operating under the SUP granted by Orange County on November 11, 2002, and filed on Marh 11, 2003 which
approved the conversion of a single-family home to a day care facility for up to 23 children and 4 staff members.
Currently, the school is out of compliance with its SUP as it’s enrolling more children than it’s allowed limit. The
applicant acknowledged this in a letter to Planning Director Cy Stober on January 12, 2024.
The applicant is proposing the improvements shown on the site plan not only to bring the school back into compliance
but also to allow for an expanded enrollment. With this modification to the SUP, the Owner is proposing to increase
enrollment at the day care to 46 children, the capacity allowed by the current Childcare License, and up to 10 staff.
These improvements include a new septic system, improved driveway and driveway connection, parking space
increases, site lighting improvements, etc.
The proposed use of the property will not change as part of this SUP application. The operation will remain as a day care
facility with all the same features and characteristics that currently exist. The main building, a 2,070 SF formally single-
family residential structure that was upfitting to a day care facility as part of the original SUP, will maintain the same.
Building elevations and operational characteristics that currently exist including the fenced outdoor playground area,
concrete sidewalks, play equipment, gardens and landscape and solid waste disposal methods will also remain
unchanged. The outparcel buildings currently unused will remain unused as part of this application.
66
2 Erwin Road Montessori School Special Use Permit Application – Exhibit C Intended Evidence Exhibit 1: Erwin Road Montessori School Special Use Permit Site Plan
- Relevant to UDO Sections 5.3.2 A & B
- It demonstrates that the proposed improvements on site will be made to allow for the increased capacity of the
daycare.Expert Witness 1: William Wirt, PE – Project Manager at Summit Design and Engineering Services in Hillsborough, NC
- Is being offered as an expert in site development and compliance with the UDO sections relevant to the subjectuse.- William possesses specialized knowledge in this field through almost 7 years of experience with design,
inspection, and construction administration in areas such as site design, stormwater and erosion control design,
private and public roadway design ADA inspection, construction material testing, and permitting through various
authorities having jurisdiction, both local and state.
- William reviewed and examined the existing permits and licenses that exist for the daycare, the current SUP and
related survey provided by Ballentine Associates for Allson Windram on 07-26-2001, the UDO sections relevant
to the existing and proposed use, GIS and USGS data and correspondence between the owner and state and
county officials. He also conducted a site visit as a means of verification.
- William leveraged standard engineering methods for this research, verification, drafting and site visits.
- William’s expert opinion relevant to UDO sections 5.8.2 demonstrates that the proposed modification to the
existing SUP will comply with the requirements of Orange County UDO for the site functionality (###) of the
intended use.
67
3 Erwin Road Montessori School Special Use Permit Application – Exhibit E Proposed Conditions In addition to the general conditions applicable to all Special Use Permits, the applicant requests the following
conditions as part of this application:
1. A gravel driveway and parking lot are proposed except at the roadway connection and the accessible parking
and access route to the building. The surface will be “all whether” and structurally sound per the detail on the
cover sheet. The requested gravel drive has several benefits to the owner and those accessing the site in this
case:
a. It will be much easier to maintain and repair throughout its lifetime which will allow for continued safe
use by the public. Maintenance on a gravel drive can be done much more effectively than asphalt or
concrete which will reduce the need to block parts of the driveway for repairs, reduce the size and
amount of equipment used and decrease time needed to maintain and repair.
b. For engineering analysis purposes, gravel is considered impervious cover. However, in practice, it does
allow for increased infiltration relative to asphalt and concrete. This will help reduce runoff rates during
storm events which benefits neighbors and helps the development achieve a lower impact on site.
c. As the site is located in a rural area, the proposed gravel drive would also fit the character of the site
and its neighboring properties.
2. An exemption of the 30’ buffer is requested with this application for the following reasons:
a. Table 6.8.6D in the Orange County UDO does not require buffers between properties of the same zoningor use.b. The existing vegetation along the southern property line and along the stream already provides an
opaque screen for neighboring properties.
c. As shown on the site plan, vegetative screening will be enhanced where necessary by using the Type-B
buffer standards.
d. Currently the site driveway location does not allow room for a 30’ buffer at the southern property
boarder. And to minimize impact and construction time, the same footprint is intended to be used
during development.
68
4 Erwin Road Montessori School Special Use Permit Application – Exhibit G Proposed Development Schedule The Owner intends to expand the septic facility and relocate the well in the Summer of 2024. Permit applications for
parking lot and driveway improvement will be filed shortly after SUP approval. Once scope of work and construction
schedule for that work is confirmed, construction will begin as soon as possible; also in the summer of 2024 or as soon
as possible following the Summer at a time when the day care is not operating (i.e. during school breaks, holiday breaks,
weekends, winter break, etc.)
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
PROJECT NO.SCALESHEET NO.FIRST ISSUE DATE735 ERWIN ROAD DURHAM, NC 27707SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONBUILDING FLOOR PLAN1 OF 124-00532024- 07- 10NTS3.00'2.67'22.42'34.25'9.96'21.58'10.96'13.38'10.96'18.08'33.67'6.63'3.00'6.50'16.00'9.00'10.96'10.96'13.37'EXISTINGEXITNOT ANEXITMAIN ENTRANCE3.67'
RAMP TO ENTRANCE6.25'21.71'NOTES:1. THIS FLOOR PLAN IS MEANT TO BEUSED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSESONLY AND SHOWS A COMBINATIONOF EXISTING AND PROPOSEDCONDITIONS TO ILLUSTRATE THEUSES OF EACH ROOM.2. NO BUILDING FOOTPRINTEXPANSION IS PROPOSED AS PARTOF THIS SUP APPLICATION3. DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREONWEREFIELD MEASURED. DIMENSIONARE NOT INTENDED TO BE USEDFOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTIONPURPOSES.4. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTINGBUILDING REQUIRED TO BE MADETO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLEREGULATIONS SHALL BE FURTHERDETAILED IN BUILDINGCONSTRUCTION PLANS SUBMITTEDTO ORANGE COUNTY. ALLCOMMENTS PROVIDED IN CLOSEDPERMIT CB-23-1541 OR ANYSUBSEQUENT PERMIT REVIEWSSHALL BE ADDRESSED DURINGCONSTRUCTION DRAWING REVIEW.5. FINAL DESIGN SHALL COMPLY WITHALL NCBC REQUIREMENTS.KITCHENADMINISTRATIONTODDLER CLASS 1BATHBATHBATHMCHALLPRIMARY CLASSPROPOSEDEXITPROPOSEDEXITEXISTINGEXIT3.00'PROPOSEDEXITN:\2024\24-0053.240\Site Design\Current Drawings\24-0053_CP.dwg, 7/11/2024 9:49:40 AM, Microsoft Print to PDF
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
LOCATION_ADDR PIN PROPERTY_OWNER OWNER_MAIL_1 OWNER_MAIL_CITYOWNER_MAIL_STATEOWNER_MAIL_ZIP
4914 ERWIN RD 801232904 DOTSON, CAROLYN W;JACOBS, DWAYNE4914 ERWIN RD DURHAM NC 27707
5309 KERLEY RD 801149197 WEAVER, BENNY P;WEAVER, DELL 5305 KERLEY RD DURHAM NC 27705
5100 ERWIN RD 801136631 HOLLOW ROCK RACQUET/SWIM CLUB5100 ERWIN ROAD DURHAM NC 27707
5316 KERLEY RD 801137867 WRIGHT, JUSTIN L 5316 KERLEY RD DURHAM NC 27705
5312 KERLEY RD 801137958 QUADE, JONATHAN D;QUADE, ALISON V6021 WILKINS DR DURHAM NC 27705
5308 KERLEY RD 801147018 TOLEDO, JOSE MANUEL VACA;GARCIA, ERIKA GARCIA5308 KERLEY RD DURHAM NC 27705
5304 KERLEY RD 801147220 ZOU, SHULI 5304 KERLEY RD DURHAM NC 27705
5300 KERLEY RD 801147342 BISSETTE, BRENT ALAN;STIVLAND, GREG C5300 KERLEY RD DURHAM NC 27705
4917 ERWIN RD 801232670 SINGLETARY, WILLIAM JR V;SINGLETARY, LOIS HICKS4917 ERWIN RD DURHAM NC 27707
5179 ERWIN RD 801127172 COUNTY OF DURHAM 200 E MAIN ST DURHAM NC 27701
3422 RANDOLPH RD 801225991 GREGORY, SIMON;GREGORY, DEBORAH3422 RANDOLPH RD DURHAM NC 27705
100 SOLTERRA WAY 801232322 NEWMAN, MARTHA;SCHALL, NANCY & HUSB DONALD100 SOLTERRA WAY DURHAM NC 27705
102 SOLTERRA WAY 801233313 GRIFFIN, JOHN PETER;BARTLETT, RACHEL M102 SOLTERRA WAY DURHAM NC 27705
104 SOLTERRA WAY 801233394 ARCE, AYANA 104 SOLTERRA WAY DURHAM NC 27705
106 SOLTERRA WAY 801234365 HORSTMAN, DONALD HERBERT;WADEKING, LINDA106 SOLTERRA WAY DURHAM NC 27707
124 SOLTERRA WAY 801234188 LINGG, HELMUT;BIELSKI, CHRISTINE124 SOLTERRA WAY DURHAM NC 27705
126 SOLTERRA WAY 801234117 LINK, THOMAS;LINK, FLORENCE 126 SOLTERRA WAY DURHAM NC 27705
4 MOON VALLEY LN 801233148 SMYRL, REBECCA 4 MOON VALLEY LN DURHAM NC 27705
7 MOON VALLEY LN 801232129 LONGLEY, MATTHEW JAMES;MATTIACCI, MARY O'NEALE7 MOON VALLEY LN DURHAM NC 27705
5 MOON VALLEY LN 801232122 SCHALL, PETER N;SCHALL, CHERYL C5 MOON VALLEY LN DURHAM NC 27705
3 MOON VALLEY LN 801232055 NIELSEN, MATTHEW E;NIELSEN, CASSIE R3 MOON VALLEY LN DURHAM NC 27705
130 SOLTERRA WAY 801222939 NIELSEN, MATTHEW E;NIELSEN, CASSIE R3 MOON VALLEY LN DURHAM NC 27705
132 SOLTERRA WAY 801222923 PERLMAN, ALAN L 132 SOLTERRA WY DURHAM NC 27705
134 SOLTERRA WAY 801221898 WYNNE, AUDREY 134 SOLTERRA WAY DURHAM NC 27705
136 SOLTERRA WAY 801220899 HENLEY, SUSAN;HENLEY, ERIC 3007 ITHACA ST DURHAM NC 27707
4 BLUE BOTTLE LN 801220976 THOMPSON, BRENNA K;MILLER, PRESTON4 BLUE BOTTLE LN DURHAM NC 27705
6 BLUE BOTTLE LN 801230082 BEYER, DEREK D;STONE, KATHERINE A6 BLUE BOTTLE LN DURHAM NC 27705
8 BLUE BOTTLE LN 801230079 PACKER, CATHERINE;HOFFMAN, DANIEL1311 E BATES PKWY ENGLEWOOD CO 86113
10 BLUE BOTTLE LN 801230187 FISHBACK, LUCAS R;FISHBACK, SARAH K10 BLUE BOTTLE LANE DURHAM NC 27705
11 BLUE BOTTLE LN 801139169 GAMERO, LUCAS;NEGRI, SILVIA 11 BLUE BOTTLE LN DURHAM NC 27705
9 BLUE BOTTLE LN 801139133 MEADOWS, CHAD;MEADOWS, ELIZABETH9 BLUE BOTTLE LN DURHAM NC 27705
7 BLUE BOTTLE LN 801139017 CLENDENIN, NATHAN C;CLENDENIN, JANIE REBECCA FOLMAR7 BLUE BOTTLE LANE DURHAM NC 27705
5 BLUE BOTTLE LN 801138091 LORING, SASHA TRUDY;LORING, ARTHUR STANLEY5 BLUE BOTTLE LN DURHAM NC 27705
140 SOLTERRA WAY 801128995 RUSSELL, DOUGLAS LAYNE 140 SOLTERRA WAY DURHAM NC 27705
113
142 SOLTERRA WAY 801127990 BERENFIELD, GREGORY N;BERENFIELD, REBECCA R142 SOLTERRA WY DURHAM NC 27705
144 SOLTERRA WAY 801126897 PERLMAN, JILL H 144 SOLTERRA WAY DURHAM NC 27705
148 SOLTERRA WAY 801126963 FORTNER, BRAND;ANDRESEN, SUSAN148 SOLTERRA WAY DURHAM NC 27705
150 SOLTERRA WAY 801136090 METZ, SANDRA KAY;GERMUTH, AMY ARMFIELD150 SOLTERRA WY DURHAM NC 27705
152 SOLTERRA WAY 801137016 SHORE, ERIKA;SCHICK, ROBERT 1908 ROLLING RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27514
154 SOLTERRA WAY 801137142 PUSEY, ANNE E 154 SOLTERRA WAY DURHAM NC 27705
156 SOLTERRA WAY 801137188 HORTON, WAYNE LEE;HORTON, SHERYL LOU SCRIMSHER156 SOLTERRA WAY DURHAM NC 27705
158 SOLTERRA WAY 801138213 CLARKSON, JUDITH 158 SOLTERRA WAY DURHAM NC 27705
160 SOLTERRA WAY 801138259 HOWARD, GUY WINSLOW;HOWARD, SHARON ROSELLE160 SOLTERRA WAY DURHAM NC 27705
98 SOLTERRA WAY 801231252 SOLTERRA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC98 SOLTERRA WY DURHAM NC 27705
4916 ERWIN RD 801230828 DOTSON, CAROLYN W;JACOBS, DWAYNE4914 ERWIN ROAD DURHAM NC 27707
4912 ERWIN RD 801241034 DOTSON, CAROLYN W;JACOBS, DWAYNE4914 ERWIN ROAD DURHAM NC 27707
4910 ERWIN RD 801242092 DOTSON, CAROLYN W;JACOBS, DWAYNE4914 ERWIN ROAD DURHAM NC 27707
5280 KERLEY RD 801146379 NYE LANDS LLC;FAMILY INVSTMNT & REAL EST COPO BOX 72762 DURHAM NC 27722
735 ERWIN RD 801134123 CHILDS PACE PROPERTIES LLC 114 YEARGEN PL CHAPEL HILL NC 27516
5306 KERLEY RD 801145290 ZOU, SHULI 5304 KERLEY RD DURHAM NC 27705
5272 KERLEY RD 801147427 QUADE, JONATHAN 6021 WILKINS DR DURHAM NC 27705
114
Staff Report
Special Use Permit SUP24-0009
Basic Information
Parcel
Identification
Number (PIN)
0801-13-1208
Parcel
Address 735 Erwin Road, Durham
Applicant
Name and
Address
Trish Nervo
Childs Pace Properties, LLC
114 Yeargen Place
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Property
Owner Name
and Address
Childs Pace Properties, LLC
114 Yeargen Place
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Agent(s), if
applicable
William Wirt, Project Manager
Summit Engineering
Parcel Size +/- 5.48 acres
Future Land
Use Map
(FLUM)
Designation
Rural Buffer
FLUM
Overlay(s)
Joint Planning Area and
Resource Protection Area
Growth
Management
System
Designation
Rural Designation
Definition of
FLUM
Designation
(from Article 10
of UDO)
Designated lands in the
Comprehensive Plan that are
adjacent to an urban or transition
area that is rural in character and
which should remain rural and
not require urban services.
Attachment 2
115
Interlocal
Agreement
Applicable
(Y/N)
Yes
Applicable ILA Joint Planning Area
Future Land
Use
Classification
Rural Residential and Resource
Protection
Description
Rural Residential designation is
identical to the Rural Buffer
category contained in the current
Orange County Land Use Plan.
The Rural Buffer category is
described in the Plan as land
adjacent to an Urban or
Transition area which is rural in
character and which should
remain rural; contain very low-
density residential uses,
agricultural uses exempt from
zoning regulations, and low-
intensity agricultural support
uses; and not require urban
services (water and sewer)
during the Plan period.
Current Zoning
District Rural Buffer (RB)
Current Use Child Care Facility
Township Chapel Hill
Requested Special
Use Care Facility (19)
Watershed District Jordan Lake Unprotected
116
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
North −Rural Buffer (RB)
−Hollow Rock Racquet and Swim Club
South −Rural Buffer (RB)
−Residential home, undeveloped
East
−RS-20, Residential Suburban District and
PDR, Planned Development Residential
(Durham County)
−Residential homes, undeveloped
West −Rural Buffer (RB)
−Residential homes
Existing Roads
North None
South None
East Erwin Road
West None
Existing Conditions/Physical Features
Child Pace Properties, LLC currently operates on the +/-5.48-acre tract. The existing childcare facility
operates in a converted single-family home located on site. The site contains an existing ingress/egress
connecting to Erwin Road, gravel driveway, parking, and accessory structures. The site contains a stream
feature which requires a stream buffer on either side of the bank per Section 6.13 of the UDO.
117
Proposed Modifications
Proposed Modifications
A 2002 Special Use Permit, recorded in Orange County Records Book 2920, Page 156 was approved for
day care facility for up to 23 children and 4 staff members. The SUP included additional conditions related
to landscaping, access, and parking. The 2002 Special Use Permit is contained in Attachment 2.
The proposed modification to the 2002 Special Use Permit does not propose any change to the land use.
The modification proposes to allow for 46 children and 10 staff members. The project proposes to utilize the
existing ingress/egress on Erwin Road.
The Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Table of Permitted Uses (Article 5, Section 2)
allows for “Care Facility” to be permitted as a Special Use in the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district, subject to
use standards and conditions of approval, including site plan approval by the Orange County Board of
Adjustment.
118
Site Plan
119
Proposed Access and Transportation Network Improvements
The project is proposing access via a 20 ft. wide gravel driveway connecting to Erwin Road. Prior to
performing work in the NCDOT right of way, the applicant will need to obtain an approved NCDOT
driveway permit.
Summary of Transportation Information
Existing Roadway Characteristics
Affected Roadway Erwin Road
Type of Roadway Major Collector
Current Roadway
Capacity 10,000 AADT
Latest Traffic Volume 4,400 AADT
Traffic Generation
Number of Trips Expected to be Generated by
Proposed Project 112 trips per day
Proposed Utilities
An existing well and septic is located on the parcel. Due to the increase in enrollment, a new septic system
will be installed, as permitted by Orange County Environmental Health and/or the state.
Erosion Control/Stormwater Regulations
The applicant has indicated the project will conform to existing Stormwater Management (Section 6.14)
and erosion and sedimentation control (Section 6.15) regulations of the UDO. A Preliminary Stormwater
Impact Analysis was submitted and is contained in Attachment 1. Attachment 5 includes Development
Advisory Committee (DAC) comments from Orange County Erosion and Sedimentation Control and
Stormwater Management staff.
Land Use Buffers/Setbacks
North 20 ft. setback from property line
South 20 ft. setback from property line
East 40 ft. setback from right-of-way
West 20 ft. setback from property line
Environmental Assessment (EA)
The applicant has provided an Environmental Assessment (EA) application and supporting materials as
required in Section 6.16 of the UDO with their submittal. These materials have been shared with various
State agencies via the NC Department of Administration’s State Clearinghouse. Planning and DEAPR
Staff have jointly reviewed the materials and agree with a determination of “Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI)” as required in Section 2.25.1 (B) (5) of the UDO (Attachment 5). This determination
120
eliminates a requirement from the applicant to provide a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) process as outlined in Sections 2.25.2 and 6.16.4 of the UDO.
Proposed Conditions
The following conditions of approval are being submitted by staff. These conditions include conditions of
approval contained in the existing SUP approved in 2002.
1. The facility shall meet all applicable requirements of the State of North Carolina Building Code.
2. Within ninety (90) days from the beginning of operation of the day care facility, all requirements to
obtain a State of North Carolina Day Care License must be met.
3. Any proposed sign for the day care facility shall meet current standards of the Orange County
Unified Development Ordinance.
4. Any zoning violations on the site shall be corrected prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the facility.
5. The care facility shall be reviewed annually by the Planning Director to ensure compliance with
the standards of evaluation for such facilities and any conditions attached to the application by
the Board of Adjustment. Any change in the operation of the facility, which deviates from the
original standards and conditions, will constitute a modification and will require the approval of the
Board of Adjustment. In determining whether a change in the operation of the facility has
occurred, the Planning Director shall be guided by the procedures and criteria contained in
Sections 2.7.14 and 5.8.2(B).
6. The applicant, prior to the release of the Special Use Permit, shall submit a letter regarding
adequacy of police protection regarding the day care facility.
7. The applicant shall obtain a Driveway Permit from the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the use.
8. The Special Use Permit shall only affect the portion of the property located within Orange
County's Zoning Jurisdiction. The Special Use Permit shall not affect the portion of the property
located in Durham County. Subsequently, no portion of the property located in Durham County
shall be used for the approved Special Use.
9. Per Section 2.5 of the UDO, the applicant shall obtain all necessary development permits from
the County prior to the initiation of any land disturbing activity associated with the construction of
the proposed use included, but not limited to: Building Permit, Land Disturbance Permit, Solid
Waste Management Permit, and Zoning Compliance Permit.
10. In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.11(C) of the UDO, if any condition of this Special
Use Permit is held invalid or void, then the Special Use Permit itself shall be held invalid or void in
its entirety and of no effect.
Solid Waste
The applicant has indicated development within the project will conform to the Orange County Solid
Waste Management Ordinance. Attachment 5 includes Development Advisory Committee comments
from Orange County Solid Waste staff.
121
11. In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.11(D) of the UDO, the Special Use Permit will
automatically expire within 12 months from the date of approval unless a vesting period was
established and approved in accordance with Section 2.5.5 of the UDO.
12. The project shall maintain existing vegetation on site and meet landscaping and screening
standards contained in Sections 6.8.7.A, 6.8.7.B, 6.8.7.C, 6.8.7.D, and 6.8.9 of the Unified
Development Ordinance, as indicated on the site plan.
The following conditions of approval are being submitted by applicant:
13. Allow for an exemption from landscape buffer standards contained in Section 6.8.6, specifically
the required Type B Buffer located along Erwin Road.
14. Proposed driveway and parking shall be surfaced with an all-weather paving material such as
asphalt or gravel, and maintained in a safe, sanitary, and neat condition. Concrete or asphalt
paving material shall be required for the driveway connection with Erwin Road and accessible
parking.
Review Milestones
Application Submittal Date April 17, 2024
Development Advisory Committee
(DAC) Review May 2, 2024
Neighborhood Information Meeting
(NIM) May 20, 2024
Note: the DAC is a staff/agency committee, established in Section 1.9 of the Unified Development
Ordinance.
Courtesy Review
Jurisdiction Date Sent Comments Received (Y/N)
Town of Chapel Hill May 2, 2024 Yes
City of Durham and Durham
County May 2, 2024 No
State Environmental Review
Clearinghouse April 22, 2024 Yes
122
Staff Analysis
Compliance with Unified Development Ordinance
Staff review determined that the application is complete and all submitted materials are in compliance
with the following applicable sections of the UDO:
Section 2.7, Special Use Permits
Section 5.2, Table of Permitted Uses
Section 5.3.2, Application of Use Standards, Special Uses
Section 5.8.2, Care Facility
“Care Facility” is identified as Use 19 in the Table of Permitted Uses. Section 5.2.1: Table of Permitted
Uses of the UDO lists Care Facility as a permitted use of property within the RB general use zoning
district subject to the issuance of a Special Use Permit.
Standards governing the development of “Care Facility”, as detailed in Section 5.8.2 of the UDO, are as
follows:
(1) Submittal Requirements
In addition to the information required by Section 2.7 or 2.9, as applicable, the following shall be
submitted as part of the application:
(a) Where a State license is required to operate the facility, evidence that the minimum
requirements to qualify for said license have been, or will be, met shall be submitted.
Staff Comment: The applicant has provided the required license as part of the
application package (Attachment 1).
(b) A floor plan of the proposed facility, showing the use and dimensions of each room
and the location of entrances and exits.
Staff Comment: The applicant has provided the required floor plan as part of the
application package (Attachment 1).
(2) Standards of Evaluation
(b) Facilities involving the care of children and adolescents shall be located in an area
which is free from conditions dangerous to the physical and moral welfare of the
children.
Staff Comment: The proposed expansion to the existing facility has been reviewed
by Orange County DAC including Planning, Building Inspections, NCDOT,
Environmental Health, Solid Waste, and Emergency Services for compliance with
Orange County Ordinances, State Building Code, Health Code, and Fire Code.
(a) Where a State license is required to operate the facility, the applicant shall
demonstrate the minimum requirements to qualify for said license are satisfied.
Staff Comment: The applicant has provided the required license as part of the
application package (Attachment 1).
(c) There is direct frontage and access on a public State-maintained road.
123
Staff Comment: The site has direct access to Erwin Road, which is a State
maintained road.
(d) Adequate access to and from the site as well as adequate space off the road right of
way, is provided for the safe pick up and discharge of clients and is provided in such
a manner that traffic generated by the facility is not disruptive to adjacent
residentially developed properties.
Staff Comment: The proposed driveway shall provide adequate space for safe pick
up and discharge of children without impacting adjacent parles or Erwin Road.
(e) All client pick up and drop offs shall be on site, with proper vehicle stacking area
equivalent to three cars.
Staff Comment: The proposed driveway area shall provide a proper stacking area
as indicated on the site plan (Attachment 1).
(f) The site plan shall show how the facilities will be screened from adjacent properties.
A Type-B, 30-foot buffer shall be provided around the facility and outdoor area in
accordance with Section 6.8.6. These buffers will effectively screen the view of any
outdoor area, and reduce noise associated with the facility.
Staff Comment: The applicant has submitted a condition for this standard.
(g) Each facility is required to provide a minimum of 75 square feet of outdoor space for
every client in care. This space may not be located in a required buffer or in an area,
which is used or reserved for use as a sewage disposal nitrification field.
Staff Comment: Minimum outdoor space has been provided on the site plan
(Attachment 1).
(h) Fencing and/or screening is to be provided which ensures the protection of the
clients receiving care and protects adjacent residentially developed properties from
trespass.
Staff Comment: A note has been provided on the site plan (Attachment 1).
(i) All gates shall be self-closing and self-latching.
Staff Comment: A note has been provided on the site plan (Attachment 1).
(j) Each facility approved by the Board of Adjustment shall be reviewed annually by the
Planning Director to ensure compliance with the standards of evaluation for such
facilities and any conditions attached to the application by the Board of Adjustment.
Any change in the operation of the facility, which deviates from the original
standards and conditions will constitute a modification and will require the approval
of the Board of Adjustment. In determining whether a change in the operation of the
facility has occurred, the Planning Director shall be guided by the procedures and
criteria contained in Sections 2.7.14 and 5.8.2(B).
Staff Comment: Staff has submitted a condition for this standard.
124
The applicant provided a description of the proposed use and site plan as part of the application packet
(Attachment 1). The site plan identifies all elements required by the above listed UDO sections.
The applicant has provided a basic environmental assessment as part of this submittal. Staff has
reviewed and determined no significant environmental impact is expected from this project based on
existing conditions. A Finding of No Significant Impact is available in Attachment 5 of case materials
presented to the Board.
Consistency with 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Staff review of the project included consideration for how the requested Special Use Permit relates to
the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The following analysis outlines elements of the
Comprehensive Plan which staff identified as applicable and relevant to the consideration of this
request.
Chapter 2 – Planning Principles
1. Efficient and Fiscally Responsible Provision of Public Facilities and Services: Orange
County’s public facilities and services should be delivered in a manner that efficiently uses
existing capacity. Expansions of facilities and services should be made only after careful
consideration of the costs and benefits of expansion.
Staff Comment: Not applicable.
2. Sustainable Growth and Development: Growth and development within the county should
occur in a pattern, location, and density that is sustainable over the long-term.
Staff Comment: The proposed project is permitted as a special use within the RB
zoning district should it comply with the UDO standards and meet the standards of
evaluation as reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. The existing land use has operated
since 2003 at this site with very minimal impacts to the surrounding area. The proposed
expansion of the existing use will remain limited to the property, generating low volumes
of traffic, and not negatively impacting surrounding properties. The use complies with
UDO standards and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Rural Buffer Future
Land Use (Comprehensive Plan Appendix F).
3. A. Encouragement of Energy Efficiency, Lower Energy Consumption and Use of Nonpolluting
Renewable Energy Resources
3. B. Promotion of Both Air Quality Protection and the Development of an Effective
Transportation System: Decreasing the use of non-renewable resources and lowering energy
consumption are encouraged in both public and private activities. The county’s transportation
system should be enhanced to promote more energy efficient modes of travel and improve air
quality.
Staff Comment: Not applicable.
4. Natural Area Resource Preservation: Protection of the County’s natural areas, including
forests, wildlife habitat, and other important open spaces should be a priority. The County
should work with regional and local organizations, the towns, and private landowners to
promote and achieve preservation of the County’s important natural resources.
Staff Comment: The applicant provided an Environmental Assessment as part of the
application package. Staff has reviewed and determined no significant environmental
impact is expected from this project based on existing conditions. The project site plan
125
protects the existing stream on site with required stream buffering. In addition, the
project strives to protect and retain existing vegetation on site.
5. Preservation of Rural Land Use Pattern: The County’s rural areas are a cherished
component of the County’s character. Future development should preserve and enhance the
county’s rural landscape.
Staff Comment: The existing use is harmonious with the rural character of the area and
creates no conflicts with adjacent land uses. The proposed low intensity land use is
consistent and compatible with the County’s rural residential landscape, as presented in
the site plan.
6. Water Resources Preservation: The County has finite water resources to provide to future
populations. The protection and management of the County’s water resources should be a high
priority.
Staff Comment: The proposed project will utilize existing onsite well. A new septic
system shall be installed to accommodate the increase in children and staff onsite, as
permitted by the Orange County Division of Environmental Health. In addition, the site
plan provides for a stream buffer to protect water quality downstream.
7. Promotion of Economic Prosperity and Diversity: Development of a diversity of new
businesses and expansion of existing businesses should occur in Orange County.
Staff Comment: The existing day care facility has operated at this location since 2002.
The proposed modification allows for care facility to continue operations in Orange
County.
8. Preservation of Community Character: Future growth and development should occur in a
manner that preserves and enhances the existing character of the County, its townships, and
rural crossroads communities.
Staff Comment: The modifications propose no new development which allows the use
to remain consistent with the surrounding rural landscape identified in both the Orange
County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement.
Chapter 5 – Land Use Element, Section 5.6 Goals
There are several land use goals in the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan of relevance to Care
Facility (Use #19) including:
Land Use Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, consistent with
the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of life.
Staff Comment: The location and character of the proposed use, developed according
to the plan submitted, will be consistent with the rural land uses of the area in which it is
to be located.
Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and
features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character.
Staff Comment: The project shall meet all applicable erosion control, stormwater
regulations, and stream buffer regulations.
Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that
limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported
by an efficient and balanced transportation system.
Staff Comment: The existing use is located within the Rural Buffer, adjacent to low
density residential uses and undeveloped properties, within a rural area of the county.
126
Standards contained in the UDO, including landscaping and setbacks, will continue to
allow the use to be buffered from neighbors and prevent negative impacts. The site shall
be developed with all applicable development standards from the Orange County UDO
in order to protect neighboring residential properties and minimize land use conflicts.
Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and
responsive.
Staff Comment: Orange County staff has noticed the public regarding this application, as
required by Section 2.7 of the UDO, including a required Neighborhood Information
Meeting, mailings to neighboring property owners, and posting of the property. Additionally,
staff have provided all application documents on the Active Development Projects
webpage, responded to public inquiries, and featured it in the Department’s newsletter.
Appendix F. Relationship Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts.
Staff Comment: The requested special use permit would affect no change to either the
zoning district or the Rural Buffer future land use classification of the subject property. The
current Rural Buffer zoning and future land use classification remain consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use and Zoning Matrix.
Consistency with Joint Planning Area (JPA) Land Use Plan
The parcel is located within the Rural Buffer and Chapel Hill Joint Development Area of the JPA. As a
result, the SUP application was provided to Chapel Hill Town staff for review and comment. Comment
provided from Town staff are included in Attachment 5.
The JPA Land Use Plan identifies the subject parcel as “Rural Residential,” which is defined as:
Rural Residential: Rural Residential designation is identical to the Rural Buffer category
contained in the current Orange County Land Use Plan. The Rural Buffer category is described
in the Plan as land adjacent to an Urban or Transition area which is rural in character and which
should remain rural; contain very low-density residential uses, agricultural uses exempt from
zoning regulations, and low-intensity agricultural support uses; and not require urban services
(water and sewer) during the Plan period.
Staff Comment: The proposed modification retains the existing land use as a care
facility and is consistent with the Rural Residential land use classification of the JPA.
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
Attachment 3134
135
136
137
1-800-C:O -DEPOT Office DEPOT. (1-8 00-463-3768) • w-.offlced•s,ot.com
I -w.offlce •pot.c• •
•• __............. ---
tilJA};,1) i0u .. Mc?A//£S5ot<./ 5~H.
11/U / 11.// r/
'5: 5&» ? /vJ 5(2e,/~~z+ ----
• <Si 4AJ _ ,;J SH J::.7£'-f
~ ·-,_
:N~£ ~DD fl.E: ~S-_ P·H. d:J::.
-'
--
--
--'
--
----
--
-----• J()p _ A_-1''1' i:?J J) ~""£ ~ 0Tif1:_X 7 y/Jd.)_;_ -
'SM1-rl(: SvMM 1-t__ DESI ~jj__i:_ ~t..,_1 ;Jk-pe.;.d4 --l_L M I
I
-7_~Sf:L N~Vo: ~1Al I!. i>. Mt:'A/~E~S°£_!</ $~
-
-
-
-
'
i
I
k
I
I
I
:
I
•
I
-
_,
138
139
140
PLANNING and INSPECTIONS
Cy Stober, AICP, Director | cstober@orangecountync.gov | 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 | 919.245.2575
CERTIFICATION OF MAILING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT EVIDENTIARY HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
I, Ashley Moncado, with Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that in
accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7 of the Orange County Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) I have mailed, or caused to be mailed, via mail a Board of Adjustment
Evidentiary Hearing Notice regarding a Special Use Permit application proposing a care facility
use located at 735 Erwin Road, Durham (PIN 0801-13-1208) on July 10, 2024.
This notice informed those property owners within 1,000 of the subject property of the proposed
Special Use Permit. The owners were identified according to the Tax Records and as required
by the UDO.
The mailed notice specified the date, time, place and subject of the Evidentiary Hearing meeting
and provided information on the Special Use Permit review process.
WITNESS my hand, this 10th day of July 2024.
____________________________________________
Ashley Moncado, AICP
Planner III
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
Attachment 4 141
PLANNING and INSPECTIONS
Cy Stober, AICP, Director | cstober@orangecountync.gov | 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 | 919.245.2575
July 10, 2024
NOTICE OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT EVIDENTIARY HEARING
TO REVIEW A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION PROPOSING
A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SPECIAL USE
PERMIT FOR A CARE FACILITY
Dear Property Owner:
This notice is to inform you of a July 24, 2024 Board of Adjustment meeting, at which an
application for a Major Modification to a previously approved Special Use Permit for a parcel
located at 735 Erwin Road, Durham, NC (PIN: 0801-13-1208) will be reviewed in an evidentiary
hearing. The +/-5.48-acre parcel is located within the Chapel Hill Township. This notification is
occurring in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7 Special Use Permits of the Orange
County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
The Special Use Permit request will be reviewed by the Orange County Board of Adjustment at
7:00 p.m., July 24, 2024 at the Whitted Meeting Facility (300 West Tryon Street,
Hillsborough, NC).
NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED FOR YOUR PROPERTY. You are receiving this notice
because you own property located within 1,000-feet of parcel requested for a Special Use
Permit.
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Parcel ID Number (PIN) 0801-13-1208
Owner Childs Pace Properties, LLC
Applicant Trish Nervo
Location 735 Erwin Road, Durham, NC
Acreage +/-5.48 acres
Current Zoning Rural Buffer
Proposed Special Use(s) No change - Care Facility
Watershed Designation Jordan Lake Unprotected
142
The Special Use Permit modification application proposes to allow for an increase in students
and employees at the existing day care facility. The application proposes parking lot
improvements and well and septic relocation onsite.
As required by the Orange County UDO, should the application be approved, conditions will be
binding for the property, with any significant change requiring subsequent Special Use Permit
request and a new hearing before the Board of Adjustment.
The review of all SUP applications is carried out in a quasi-judicial format, meaning that
decisions relating to the approval or denial of an application are based solely on the sworn
testimony of all parties involved with the case, both those for and against an application. The
applicant has the burden of establishing, by the submission of competent, material, and
substantial evidence, the existence of facts and conditions that demonstrate the project’s
compliance with the various requirements and standards for the proposed uses detailed within the
UDO. Those opposing approval of the application shall have the burden of establishing, also
through the submission of competent, material, and substantial evidence, the specific manner in
which the proposal does not satisfy the requirements for approval of the application.
Public comments in the form of sworn testimony meeting evidentiary standards can be accepted.
Quasi-judicial hearings and decisions require a ‘fair trial standard’ including accepting only
competent, material, and substantial evidence. Personal, anecdotal, or hearsay comments,
however, shall not be accepted as they do not represent ‘competent, material, and substantial
evidence.’ Additional information related to Special Use Permits can be found at the following
link: https://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21348/Special-Use-Permit-Fact-
Sheet?bidId=.
Additional information is available on the Orange County Planning Department’s website:
https://www.orangecountync.gov/3375/Special-Use-Permit-Application---Major-M
If you cannot attend the Board of Adjustment meeting and the website does not answer your
questions about the requested Special Use Permit, you may call 919-245-2575 during regular
business hours and you will be directed to a staff person who can assist you.
Sincerely,
Patrick Mallett
Patrick Mallett
Deputy Director, Development Services
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
143
144
June 10, 2024
Childs Pace Properties (SUP) Application
Case #: SUP24-0009
PIN: 0801-13-1208
Re: Development Advisory Committee Report for SUP24-0005 (UDO Section 1.9.5)
The Orange County Development Advisory Committee (DAC) met on May 2, 2024, for a final
review and discussion of the special use permit application for PIN 0801-13-1208 (Case #:
SUP24-0009).
The Orange County DAC has no objections to the approval of the special use permit application
so long as the items in the attached departmental memos are addressed. The application
package features an abstract and staff report that provide the foundations for my
recommendation regarding this application and request.
Sincerely,
Patrick Mallett
Patrick Mallett
Deputy Director, Development Services
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
Attachment 5
145
PLANNING and INSPECTIONS
Cy Stober, AICP, Director | cstober@orangecountync.gov | 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 | 919.245.2575
Development Advisory Committee (DAC) Comments
DAC review comments and recommendations do not constitute plan or permit approval for this application
and/or replace any other plans and permits that may be required by other County departments and State
agencies.
Project: SUP24-0009 (Erwin Rd Montesorri) Special Use Permit Application
Location/PIN: 0801-13-1208
Applicant: Childs Pace Properties, LLC
Staff Planner: Ashley Moncado, Planner III
DAC Meeting Date: 5/2/2024
Addressing and
Land Records Date: Staff:
Britney Pendleton
brpendleton@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2576
No comments received.
Attorney’s Office Date: Staff:
James Bryan
jbryan@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2319
No comments received.
Building
Inspections Date: 4/22/2024 Staff:
Michael Rettie
mrettie@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2604
1. The building issues associated with this daycare facility have been discussed with Ms.
Nervo through the plans review correspondence associated with the closed permit
application: CB23-1541.
2. The presented floor plan indicates an “infant room” that has not been approved for
construction. See plans review comments associated with the closed permit CB23-1541.
3. The toddler room 2 is not approved for childcare due to the required exterior means of
egress is not provided and the corridor is not fire rated.
4. Toddler room 1 cannot exit through another childcare room (toddler room 2).
DEAPR Date: Staff:
Chris Hirni
chirni@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2514
No comments received.
Environmental
Health Date: 4/25/24 Staff:
Victoria Hudson
vhudson@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2365
1. The Department has records for this parcel.
2. A Well Permit has been issued in accordance with PWS standards which will
allow the center to have more than 25 persons.
146
3. The wastewater system will need to be approved for the increased daily design
flow. It is the understanding of this Department that this is pending.
Erosion
Control Date: 4/29/24 Staff:
Nate Jacobsen
njacobsen@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2580
1. No comments.
Fire and Life
Safety Date: Staff:
Elizabeth Farnan
efarnan@orangecountync.gov
919-245-6153
No comments received.
NCDOT Date: Staff:
Chuck Edwards
cnedwards@ncdot.gov
336-570-6833
No comments received.
Planning Date: 4/24/24 Staff:
Ashley Moncado
amoncado@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2589
Application
1. Elevations or pictures of all structures proposed to be used in the development.
2. Confirm with staff a vesting period is not being requested.
3. Complete Exhibit A – Statement of Standing.
4. Exhibit C does not make any refence to Section 5.3.2(A) or (B) of the UDO. Staff
recommends a review of this section and possible revision to application materials to
address this section.
5. Application materials do not make any reference to existing conditions contained in the
2003 Special Use Permit. Staff recommends a review and possible revision to
application materials to address existing conditions applied to the property.
6. Provide an update to staff regarding status of property value work for submittal (i.e.
appraisal or tax records).
7. Confirm with staff if conditions are being proposed or not. If yes, please provide to staff
for review.
8. Documentation and updates regarding the septic and well systems currently under
review by the OC EH and the state.
Site Plan
1. Provide building height and finished floor elevations for all structures on the site.
2. Identify and label existing stream and 65-ft. stream buffer.
3. Label primary tree protection areas per Section 6.8.4(A).
4. Identify plantings and note Section 6.8.7(A) Street Trees will be met.
5. Identify plantings and note Section 6.8.7(B) Between Lot Plantings will be met.
6. Identify plantings and note Section 6.8.7(C) Foundation Plantings will be met.
7. Identify plantings and note Section 6.8.7(D) Landscaping of Vehicular Use Areas will be
met.
8. The site plan shall show how the facilities will be screened from adjacent properties. A
Type-B, 30-foot buffer shall be provided around the facility and outdoor area in
accordance with Section 6.8.6.
9. Identify screening and note Section 6.8.9 will be met.
10. All parking spaces and maneuvering space shall be surfaced with an all-weather paving
material, such as asphalt or concrete, and maintained in a safe, sanitary and neat
condition. Gravel parking areas may be permitted with the approval of the DAC
11. Within areas of the County designated as ‘rural’, as delineated on the Growth
Management Systems Map, or within Rural Neighborhood or Rural Industrial Nodes, as
delineated on the Orange County Land Use Element Map, the maximum light level
147
permitted along common property lines shall be 0.25 foot-candles at any adjoining
residentially zoned property line and/or 0.5 foot-candle at any adjoining property line wit
a non-residential land use. This site is located in a Rural Area on the Growth
Management Systems Map.
12. Parking and access dimension appear to vary on the site plan. As a result, please
provide varying dimensions for the drive aisle and parking spaces.
13. All client pick and drop off shall be on site, with proper vehicle stacking area equivalent
to three cars. Label and note pick up and drop off area on the site plan.
14. Label and hatch ADA route from entrance to parking area.
15. Provide sight distance triangles at the entrance and Erwin Road.
16. Identify and label any existing signs onsite.
17. A floor plan of the proposed facility, showing the dimensions of each room.
18. Provide and label the square footage of the required outdoor space on the site plan. In
addition, provide note regarding surface materials for this area.
19. Add note stating all gates shall be self-closing and self-latching.
20. All setbacks and separation distance for all structures on the site.
21. Provide note stating accessory structures shall not be utilized for the care facility use.
22. Provide distance to nearest single family home adjacent.
23. Identify steep slopes on the existing conditions sheet.
Solid Waste Date: 4/26/24 Staff:
Matt Taylor
mtaylor@orangecountync.gov
919-918-4905
Please add the following comments to the notes section on the cover sheet:
OCSW Construction Waste Requirements:
• All existing structures 500 square feet and larger shall be assessed prior to the issuance
of a demolition permit to ensure compliance with the County’s Regulated Recyclable
Materials Ordinance (RRMO) and to assess the potential for deconstruction and/or the
reuse of salvageable materials. Contact the Orange County SW Enforcement Officer at
919-968-2788 to arrange for the assessment.
• Pursuant to the County’s RRMO, clean wood waste, scrap metal, and corrugated
cardboard present in construction or demolition waste must be recycled.
• Pursuant to the County’s RRMO, all haulers of mixed construction and demolition waste
which includes any regulated recyclable materials shall be licensed by Orange County.
• Prior to any demolition or construction activity on the site, the applicant shall hold a pre-
demolition/pre-construction conference with Solid Waste staff. This may be the same
pre-construction meeting held with other development/enforcement officials.
• The presence if any asbestos containing materials (‘ACM’) and/or other hazardous
materials shall be handled in accordance with any and all local, state, and federal
regulations and guidelines.
Also, with the potential for the day care to have increased enrollment, the amount of trash carts
and recycling carts that are servicing the facility will need to be reevaluated.
Stormwater
Management Date: 4/29/24 Staff:
Nate Jacobsen
njacobsen@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2580
1. No comments.
148
Transportation
Services Date: 4/30/24 Staff:
Darlene Weaver
dweaver@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2002
1. In accordance with Orange County Complete Streets and Orange County Vision
Zero policy we request the applicant provide opportunities for all travel modes
especially bike, pedestrians. i.e., Sidewalks
2. After reviewing the site plans, with the new development at Erwin Road traffic will
increase, the area is already having increased traffic. We must ensure safety for
pedestrians and children.
149
Re: Response to Comments from Development Advisory Committee (dated 4-24-2024) Building Inspections 1. Noted. The building improvements required as a result of the comments listed below will be
addressed in conjunction with the site improvements. 2. See response to comment 1. 3. See response to comment 1. 4. See response to comment 1. Environmental Health 1. Noted. 2. Noted. 3. Yes, an upgraded septic system to allow for increased daily design flow to allow for a larger
enrollment is an improvement proposed with this application. The proposed septic system is a TS-
II pretreatment drip system that will be submitted via the Engineer Option Permit (EOP). The
permit application will be submitted subsequent to the approval of this SUP approval. Planning - Ashely Moncado
Application 1. Given the age of the building, elevations are not available. Only that central day care facility
(currently in use) will be used in the proposed development. Pictures of that building are provided
with this submittal. 2. No vesting period is being requested. The applicant plans on beginning the permitting process
immediately upon approval of the SUP. If an extension is required due to delays in permitting or
construction, it will be requested in a timely application! 3. Property Owner information has been completed in Exhibit A. The applicant information is the
same as the Owner. No agent has been engaged at this time. 4. Exhibit C has been updated to reflect the reference to Section 5.3.2 which was incorrectly listed as
5.8.2. 5. Exhibit B, added at the end of the application, has been updated to better explain project history
and situation. Please note that the current SUP was referenced as being approved on 11/11/2002. 6. The Orange County Property Record Card is included with this submittal which includes appraisal data. 150
2 7. See Exhibit E attached to the end of the revised application. Two conditions are requested; the
approval of a gravel driveway and eliminating the 30’ buffer. 8. See comment to 2 from environmental health; a well permit has been issue for the site. The septic
system design is near completion however, given the pending approval of this application, a septic
permit application has not been submitted as of yet.
Site Plan 1. Building height and finished floor elevations are provided for the primary building, the only
building currently or planned to be in use. Given the age of the buildings on site, there are no
existing drawings to confirm these dimensions. The outbuildings are old farm structures - only one
of which is in use as a storage shed - do not have finished floor elevations, it’s either bare earth
beneath the structure or the floor is too dilapidated to determine and elevation. 2. The existing stream and the required 65’ buffer have been updated and labeled on the site plan. 3. Primary tree protection area is labeled on the site plan with in the existing tree line has no mass
clearing is proposed with this application. The tree protection area is fenced in with TP linetype. 4. Added to site plans sheet. 5. Added to site plans sheet. 6. Added to site plans sheet. 7. Added to site plans sheet. 8. Please see the requested conditions to eliminate 30’ buffer. 9. Added to site plans sheet. 10. Please see the requested condition for a gravel surface drive 11. The lighting model has been updated with the existing vegetation and proposed supplemental
plantings at the property line that will help to screen lighting and reduce to the footcandles below
0.25 at the adjacent property lines. 12. The site plan has been updated to show the proposed stacking area with room for at least three
cars. It should also be noted that the staggered pickup times allow for more availability of parking
spaces which reduce stacking in the drive-aisles. 13. All pick up and dropoff areas are on site, the stacking area has been identified on the site plan. 14. ADA route has been added an labeled on the site plan. 15. Sight distance triangles have been added to the site plan. 16. No existing signs on site. 17. A floorplan showing the dimensions is included on the OC Property Record card included with this
submittal. 18. Required outdoor play area is listed in the site information table. Notes labeling the outdoor area
list the provided square footage and have been updated to include ground cover type. 19. This note has been added as note 13 under project notes on the cover sheet.
151
3 20. Setbacks are shown and labeled on the site plan. 21. This note has been added as note 14 under project notes on the cover sheet. 22. Dimension has been added to the site plan sheet. 23. Steep slopes have been identified on the existing conditions sheet.
Solid Waste - The requested notes have been added to the cover sheet. - Comment regarding the amount of roll carts provided given the proposed increase in enrollment is
noted.
Transportation Services 1. Travel mode access opportunities are largely restricted by Erwin Road right-of-way. Currently there
is no bike lane infrastructure and the area on the subject parcel’s side of the road is restricted by a
stream that runs parallel to Erwin Road along its frontage and a large 60” culvert that crosses
beneath the road. Therefore, there is no space to provide a sidewalk in this location either. 2. The proposed traffic count increase does not warrant a Traffic Impact Analysis and the subsequent
improvements that may be require as a result thereof. However, traffic impact at this facility is
mitigated by staggered pick up times as described on the site plan cover sheet. Furthermore, the
pickup and drop off areas are located far from the road into the interior of the site eliminating
traffic back up into Erwin Road and allowing ample room for parking and staking to allow for safe
access to the building. 152
PLANNING and INSPECTIONS
Cy Stober, AICP, Director | cstober@orangecountync.gov | 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 | 919.245.2575
Development Advisory Committee (DAC) Comments
DAC review comments and recommendations do not constitute plan or permit approval for this application
and/or replace any other plans and permits that may be required by other County departments and State
agencies.
Project: SUP24-0009 (Erwin Rd Montesorri) Special Use Permit Application
Location/PIN: 0801-13-1208
Applicant: Childs Pace Properties, LLC
Staff Planner: Ashley Moncado, Planner III
DAC Meeting Date: 5/2/2024
Addressing and
Land Records Date: Staff:
Britney Pendleton
brpendleton@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2576
No comments received.
Attorney’s Office Date: Staff:
James Bryan
jbryan@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2319
No comments received.
Building
Inspections Date: 4/22/2024 Staff:
Michael Rettie
mrettie@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2604
1. The building issues associated with this daycare facility have been discussed with Ms.
Nervo through the plans review correspondence associated with the closed permit
application: CB23-1541.
2. The presented floor plan indicates an “infant room” that has not been approved for
construction. See plans review comments associated with the closed permit CB23-1541.
3. The toddler room 2 is not approved for childcare due to the required exterior means of
egress is not provided and the corridor is not fire rated.
4. Toddler room 1 cannot exit through another childcare room (toddler room 2).
DEAPR Date: Staff:
Chris Hirni
chirni@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2514
No comments received.
Environmental
Health Date: 4/25/24 Staff:
Victoria Hudson
vhudson@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2365
1. The Department has records for this parcel.
2. A Well Permit has been issued in accordance with PWS standards which will
allow the center to have more than 25 persons.
153
3. The wastewater system will need to be approved for the increased daily design
flow. It is the understanding of this Department that this is pending.
Erosion
Control Date: 4/29/24 Staff:
Nate Jacobsen
njacobsen@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2580
1. No comments.
Fire and Life
Safety Date: Staff:
Elizabeth Farnan
efarnan@orangecountync.gov
919-245-6153
No comments received.
NCDOT Date: Staff:
Chuck Edwards
cnedwards@ncdot.gov
336-570-6833
No comments received.
Planning Date: 4/24/24 Staff:
Ashley Moncado
amoncado@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2589
Application
1. Elevations or pictures of all structures proposed to be used in the development.
2. Confirm with staff a vesting period is not being requested.
3. Complete Exhibit A – Statement of Standing.
4. Exhibit C does not make any refence to Section 5.3.2(A) or (B) of the UDO. Staff
recommends a review of this section and possible revision to application materials to
address this section.
5. Application materials do not make any reference to existing conditions contained in the
2003 Special Use Permit. Staff recommends a review and possible revision to
application materials to address existing conditions applied to the property.
6. Provide an update to staff regarding status of property value work for submittal (i.e.
appraisal or tax records).
7. Confirm with staff if conditions are being proposed or not. If yes, please provide to staff
for review.
8. Documentation and updates regarding the septic and well systems currently under
review by the OC EH and the state.
Site Plan
1. Provide building height and finished floor elevations for all structures on the site.
2. Identify and label existing stream and 65-ft. stream buffer.
3. Label primary tree protection areas per Section 6.8.4(A).
4. Identify plantings and note Section 6.8.7(A) Street Trees will be met.
5. Identify plantings and note Section 6.8.7(B) Between Lot Plantings will be met.
6. Identify plantings and note Section 6.8.7(C) Foundation Plantings will be met.
7. Identify plantings and note Section 6.8.7(D) Landscaping of Vehicular Use Areas will be
met.
8. The site plan shall show how the facilities will be screened from adjacent properties. A
Type-B, 30-foot buffer shall be provided around the facility and outdoor area in
accordance with Section 6.8.6.
9. Identify screening and note Section 6.8.9 will be met.
10. All parking spaces and maneuvering space shall be surfaced with an all-weather paving
material, such as asphalt or concrete, and maintained in a safe, sanitary and neat
condition. Gravel parking areas may be permitted with the approval of the DAC
11. Within areas of the County designated as ‘rural’, as delineated on the Growth
Management Systems Map, or within Rural Neighborhood or Rural Industrial Nodes, as
delineated on the Orange County Land Use Element Map, the maximum light level
154
permitted along common property lines shall be 0.25 foot-candles at any adjoining
residentially zoned property line and/or 0.5 foot-candle at any adjoining property line wit
a non-residential land use. This site is located in a Rural Area on the Growth
Management Systems Map.
12. Parking and access dimension appear to vary on the site plan. As a result, please
provide varying dimensions for the drive aisle and parking spaces.
13. All client pick and drop off shall be on site, with proper vehicle stacking area equivalent
to three cars. Label and note pick up and drop off area on the site plan.
14. Label and hatch ADA route from entrance to parking area.
15. Provide sight distance triangles at the entrance and Erwin Road.
16. Identify and label any existing signs onsite.
17. A floor plan of the proposed facility, showing the dimensions of each room.
18. Provide and label the square footage of the required outdoor space on the site plan. In
addition, provide note regarding surface materials for this area.
19. Add note stating all gates shall be self-closing and self-latching.
20. All setbacks and separation distance for all structures on the site.
21. Provide note stating accessory structures shall not be utilized for the care facility use.
22. Provide distance to nearest single family home adjacent.
23. Identify steep slopes on the existing conditions sheet.
Solid Waste Date: 4/26/24 Staff:
Matt Taylor
mtaylor@orangecountync.gov
919-918-4905
Please add the following comments to the notes section on the cover sheet:
OCSW Construction Waste Requirements:
• All existing structures 500 square feet and larger shall be assessed prior to the issuance
of a demolition permit to ensure compliance with the County’s Regulated Recyclable
Materials Ordinance (RRMO) and to assess the potential for deconstruction and/or the
reuse of salvageable materials. Contact the Orange County SW Enforcement Officer at
919-968-2788 to arrange for the assessment.
• Pursuant to the County’s RRMO, clean wood waste, scrap metal, and corrugated
cardboard present in construction or demolition waste must be recycled.
• Pursuant to the County’s RRMO, all haulers of mixed construction and demolition waste
which includes any regulated recyclable materials shall be licensed by Orange County.
• Prior to any demolition or construction activity on the site, the applicant shall hold a pre-
demolition/pre-construction conference with Solid Waste staff. This may be the same
pre-construction meeting held with other development/enforcement officials.
• The presence if any asbestos containing materials (‘ACM’) and/or other hazardous
materials shall be handled in accordance with any and all local, state, and federal
regulations and guidelines.
Also, with the potential for the day care to have increased enrollment, the amount of trash carts
and recycling carts that are servicing the facility will need to be reevaluated.
Stormwater
Management Date: 4/29/24 Staff:
Nate Jacobsen
njacobsen@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2580
1. No comments.
155
Transportation
Services Date: 4/30/24 Staff:
Darlene Weaver
dweaver@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2002
1. In accordance with Orange County Complete Streets and Orange County Vision
Zero policy we request the applicant provide opportunities for all travel modes
especially bike, pedestrians. i.e., Sidewalks
2. After reviewing the site plans, with the new development at Erwin Road traffic will
increase, the area is already having increased traffic. We must ensure safety for
pedestrians and children.
156
PLANNING and INSPECTIONS
Cy Stober, AICP, Director | cstober@orangecountync.gov | 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 | 919.245.2575
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cy Stober, AICP – Director, Planning & Inspections Department
FROM:
Christopher Sandt, PE – County Engineer, Planning & Inspections; and
Steve Kaltenbach, Erosion Control and Stormwater Manager
CC: Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director Development Services
DATE: May 14, 2024
CASE: SUP24-0009 – Special Use Permit Application – Major Modification to
a Previously Approved Permit
PIN: 0801-13-1208
WATERSHED: Jordan Lake Unprotected (Cape Fear River Basin)
PROJECT: Erwin Road Montessori School
SUBJECT: Summary of Findings Regarding Conformance with Orange County
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for Erosion & Sedimentation
Control and Stormwater Management
This memo summarizes the Development Services Erosion Control and Stormwater
Management Division’s (hereafter, the “Division’s”) assessment of the submitted
application for a major modification to a previously approved Special Use Permit,
submitted as “Erwin Road Montessori School” project (hereafter, the “project”). The
project is located within 5.48 acres of property at 735 Erwin Road in the Chapel Hill
township of Orange County, North Carolina.
The application/request proposes development consisting of:
Parking lot improvements
Well and septic relocation
The Staff comments contained herein are based upon review of a Site Plan dated April
12, 2024. These findings should not be interpreted as the Division’s final
analysis/approval of the proposed development. Upon zoning approval, the proposed
development would then be required to submit a Land Disturbing Permit (LDP) which
would formally be reviewed and approved development activity consistent with the Site
Plan.
157
Erosion & Sedimentation Control (E&SC):
According to current Orange County GIS imagery of the project parcel, there are mapped
stream features within the project parcel boundaries. Orange County enforces stream
buffers along streams, rivers, water bodies, and other water features (e.g., wetlands) as
outlined in Section 6.13 of the Orange County UDO. Based on the submitted materials
for the proposed development, the project could meet the basic Erosion and
Sedimentation Control requirements as outlined in Section 6.15 of the Orange County
UDO and could be developed as generally proposed. The proposal will also require an
Army Corps PCN 404/401 application for both the wetland impact and stream buffer
impact and issuance of Orange County buffer impact authorization certificate for the
planned stream crossing.
Stormwater Management:
The submitted materials indicate a level of development that could meet current UDO
requirements specific to stormwater management. The project has not yet submitted
supporting stormwater management plans or calculations; however, it is feasible that the
project can meet water quantity requirements (i.e., post-development stormwater runoff
attenuation). There are no water quality requirements (i.e. post-development nutrient
attenuation) currently associated with the Watershed Overlay District within which the
project is located. The project will need to meet applicable stormwater management
requirements as outlined in Section 6.14 of the Orange County UDO and must be in
general conformance with the North Carolina Stormwater Design Manual (i.e., Minimum
Design Criteria).
Conclusion:
The Division has No Objections to the approval of the major modification request so long
as a complete LDP application and supporting plans and calculations are submitted to
Orange County for review, processing and approval prior to commencement of on-site
Land-Disturbing Activity. As the project progresses, additional field observations, and/or
permitting by others (e.g. US Army Corps of Engineers, NC Department of Environmental
Quality, NC Department of Transportation, etc.), additional buffers, setbacks, and/or
additional Orange County review and permitting may apply beyond the proposed
development as shown with this major modification request.
___________________________ _______________
Christopher Sandt, PE Date
5/14/2024
__________________________ _______________
Steve Kaltenbach Date
158
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cy Stober, AICP – Director, Planning & Inspections Department
FROM: Victoria Hudson – Orange County Environmental Health Division
CC: Patrick Mallett – Deputy Director Development Services
DATE: May 22, 2024
CASE: SUB24-0009
PIN: 0801-13-1208
WATERSHED: Jordan Lake
PROJECT: Revised SUP— Childcare Center Expansion
SUBJECT: Summary of Plan Review by Orange County Environmental
Health Division
This memo summarizes the summarizes the findings of an Orange County
Environmental Health plan review of the application for a revised Special Use Permit
plan, submitted as the “Erwing Road Montessori” project (hereafter, the “project”).
The project is located on 5.48 acres of property at 735 Erwin Rd, Durham. The
request proposes development consisting of:
• Major modification to original SUP (approved by the BOCC as a Class
A SUP on November 11, 2002) to increase the cap of 23 students and
4 faculty to a maximum of 46 students and 10 faculty.
The Staff comments contained herein are based upon the submittal of a required Site
Plan, dated April 12, 2024, and posted for review on April 15, 2024. These findings
should not be interpreted as the Division’s final analysis/approval of the proposed
development. Soil and site evaluations have not been conducted by the Orange
County Health Department, Environmental Health Division.
159
Environmental Health Conditions
At this time, no application(s) have been received. Application(s) and fees
required.
Improvement Permit(s) shall only be issued upon presentation of the exact
structure to be constructed.
X Permit(s) must be issued by the Orange County Health Department prior to any
alteration of the lot(s).
X Permit conditions may apply.
Existing EH records are attached.
Existing well and/or septic systems will be impacted.
X Contact Public Water Supply for on-site water supply.
Other:
Conclusion:
EH has no objections to the approval of the zoning request so long as the above list
is addressed to the Orange County Health Department for processing and issuance
of Permits. This designation is not an Improvement Permit or Well Permit and not
approval for a septic system or on-site water supply. Additional field observations
and/or permitting by others may apply beyond the proposed development as shown
with this request. Please direct any questions or requests for Laws, Rules, and
policy to ehapplications@orangecountync.gov.
05-22-2024
Victoria Hudson, MPA, REHS Date
Or designee
160
1
Ashley E. Moncado
From:Genwright, David I <digenwright@ncdot.gov>
Sent:Thursday, May 9, 2024 2:55 PM
To:erwinroadms@gmail.com
Cc:Chuck Edwards Contact; Patrick R. Mallett; Ashley E. Moncado
Subject:[EXTERNAL MAIL!] 5/2 DAC Follow-up
Good afternoon,
My name is David Genwright and I am the assistant District Engineer for NCDOT. I believe during the May
2nd DAC meeting, one of your team members requested more information about the driveway
requirements for NCDOT. I have attached here the "Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North
Carolina Highways" manual. I have also linked here the Permits Portal which is the place where the
permit will be requested, submittals will be reviewed, and the permit will be issued. Major highlights on
what we will need are listed below.
Approved NCDOT Driveway Permit for proposed connection to Erwin Road.
o $50 Driveway fee per every access
An approved NCDOT Encroachment Agreement for any proposed utility installations or activities
within right of way.
Provide site driveway details including but not limited to:
o Width
o Radii
o 10’x70’ Sight Distance Triangles
o Driveway pavement details
o Accommodation of Drainage
o Etc.
The applicant will need to further evaluate and verify that roadway geometry and proposed access
location provides adequate sight distance per NCDOT and AASHTO requirements.
If there are any further questions, please reach out to us. Thanks.
Wishing you the best,
David Genwright
Assistant District Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Division 7, District 1
(336) 570-6833
digenwright@ncdot.gov
115 East Crescent Square Drive
P. O. Box 766
Graham, NC 27253
161
510 Meadowlands Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 245‐6100 Main Office
www.orangecountync.gov/oces
Fire & Life Safety Division
TO: Cy Stober, AICP – Director, Planning & Inspections
FROM: Elizabeth Farnan – Division Chief of Fire & Life Safety, Emergency Services
CC: Ashley Moncado – Planner III, Planning & Inspections
Date: June 13, 2024
CASE: SUP24-0009 (Childs Pace Properties, LLC)
PIN: 0801131208
PROJECT: Special Use Permit Modification
SUBJECT: Site Plan Review Regarding Conformance with Orange County Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) for Emergency Apparatus Access, Addressing,
and Water Availability for Required Fire Flow
____________________________________________________________________________
This memo is to show that the Fire & Life Safety Division has NO OBJECTIONS to the approval
of the SUP Modification request for the existing daycare facility.
June 13, 2024
Elizabeth Farnan, FM Date
162
May 23, 2024
Pamela B. Cashwell
Secretary
Roy Cooper
Governor
Dear Ashley Moncado:
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse under
the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made in the review of this document. Because of the nature of the comments,
it has been determined that no further State Clearinghouse review action on your part is needed for compliance
with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. The attached comments should be taken into consideration in
project development.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (984) 236-0000.
Sincerely,
KADISHA MOLYNEAUX
State Environmental Review Clearinghouse
Re: SCH File # 24-E-4600-0274 Special Use Permit (SUP) Application for proposed project to expand existing
day care facility located at 735 Erwin Road, Durham, NC (PIN 0801-13-1208); a modification to a 2002
SUP to allow for 46 children.
Ashley Moncado
CHILDS PACE PROPERTIES, LLC
c/o Orange County Planning & Inspections
131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201
Hillsborough, NC 27278-
Attachments
Mailing
1301 Mail Service Center | Raleigh, NC 27699-1301
ncadmin.nc.gov
Location
116 West Jones St. | Raleigh NC 27603
984-236-0000 T
163
To: Kadisha Molyneaux
State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Administration
From: Lyn Biles
Re:
Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service
Washington Regional Office
24-0274
Environmental Assessment -Special Use Permit (SUP) Application for
proposed project to expand existing day care facility located at 735
Erwin Road, Durham, NC (PIN 0801-13-1208); a modification to a
2002 SUP to allow for 46 children.
Orange County
Date: May 18, 2024
The proposal for the mentioned project has been reviewed by the Department of
Environment Quality. After analyzing the information provided, our agencies have
identified several permits that may be required. You'll find the comments attached for
your review.
We are always available to assist the applicant with any doubts or concerns.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond.
Attachments
164
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Ingram Cameron, Executive Director
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: (919) 707-0220 • Fax: (919) 707-0028
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lyn Biles, Environmental Assistance and SEPA Coordinator
NCDENR Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Services
FROM: Olivia Munzer, Western Piedmont Coordinator
Habitat Conservation
DATE: 13 May 2024
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment and Special Use Permit Application for the Childs Pace
Properties, LLC – Erwin Road Montessori in Chapel Hill, Orange County, North
Carolina. DEQ No. 24-0274.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject
document. Comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131
et seq.).
Summit Designs and Engineering Services, on behalf of Childs Pace Properties, LLC, has prepared a
Special Use Permit Application and Environmental Assessment for the installation of a new septic system
to increase the capacity of the Erwin Road Montessori School located at 735 Erwin Road, Chapel Hill,
Orange County, North Carolina.
The site drains to New Hope Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin. According to the documents provided, a
stream flows through the site. We have records for the state threatened creeper (Strophitus undulatus),
and state significantly rare eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis) and chameleon lampmussel (Lampsilis
sp.2) in New Hope Creek. We have known records for the state endangered and federal proposed
endangered tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) in Orange County and potentially suitable habitat may
occur on the site. We recommend contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that any issues
related to this species are addressed.
We offer the following recommendations to further minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
resources:
1. We recommend not clearing the entire site, but rather maintaining the maximum amount of native
vegetation as possible.
2. The project footprint should be surveyed for wetlands and streams to ensure there are no impacts
to surface waters. In addition to providing wildlife habitat, wetland areas and streams aid in flood
165
13 May 2024 Page 2 NCWRC Comments
Erwin Rd Montessori EA
Orange County
control and water quality protection. United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 404
Permits and NC DWR Section 401 Certifications are required for any impacts to jurisdictional
streams or wetlands.
3. Maintain a minimum 100-foot undisturbed, native, forested buffer along perennial streams, and a
minimum 50-foot buffer along intermittent streams and wetlands. Maintaining undisturbed,
forested buffers along these areas will minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
resources, water quality, and aquatic habitat both within and downstream of the project area.
Also, wide riparian buffers are helpful in maintaining stability of stream banks and for treatment
of pollutants associated with urban stormwater.
4. We recommend minimize clearing of living, dying, or dead mature trees, particularly if they are
hardwoods, and avoid tree clearing activities during the activity period for tricolored bats (April 1
– November 14).
5. We recommend using native plants for seeding disturbed areas. Avoid using non-native and/or
invasive species such as Bermudagrass, redtop, fescue, and lespedeza. Alternatively, use grains,
such as oats, wheat, or rye for temporary cover and native seed mixes for permeant seeding. A list
of alternatives to non-native species has been attached. We recommend planting native,
wildflower seed mixes that will create pollinator habitat within the project boundary as well as
planting native trees and shrubs in landscaping. Avoid using invasive, non-native plants in seed
mixtures or landscaping plants (http://www.ncwildflower.org/plant_galleries/invasives_list).
6. Erosion and sediment control measures should conform to the High Quality Water Zones
standards stipulated in the NC Department of Environmental Quality Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan (https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/energy-mineral-
land-permit-guidance/erosion-sediment-control-planning-design-manual). Sediment and erosion
control measures should use advanced methods and installed prior to any land-disturbing activity.
7. Erosion control matting made of plastic mesh or twine should not be used within the project area
because it can injure or kill wildlife.
166
Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh
Project Number: 24-0274 Due Date: 5/10/2024
County: Orange
After review of this project, it has been determined that the DEQ permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the
form. All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Normal Process
Time
(Statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater
treatment facilities, non-standard sewer system
extensions & sewer systems that do not
discharge into state surface waters.
Application 90 days before begins construction or award of
construction contracts. On-site inspection may be required. Post-
application technical conference usual.
30 days
(90 days)
Permit to construct & operate, sewer
extensions involving gravity sewers, pump
stations and force mains discharging into a
sewer collection
system
Fast-Track Permitting program consists of the submittal of an
application and an engineer's certification that the project meets all
applicable State rules and Division Minimum Design Criteria.
30 days
(N/A)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water
and/or permit to operate and construct
wastewater facilities discharging into state
surface waters.
Application 180 days before begins activity. On-site inspection. Pre-
application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct
wastewater treatment facility granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days
after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
90-120 days
(N/A)
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary. 30 days
(N/A)
Well Construction Permit
Complete application must be received, and permit issued prior to the
installation of a groundwater monitoring well located on property not
owned by the applicant, and for a large capacity (>100,000 gallons per
day) water supply well.
7 days
(15 days)
Dredge and Fill Permit
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property
owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling may
require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and
Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
55 days
(90 days)
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution
Abatement facilities and/or Emission Sources as
per 15 A NCAC (2Q.O100 thru 2Q.0300)
Application must be submitted, and permit received prior to
construction and operation of the source. If a permit is required
in an area without local zoning, then there are additional
requirements and timelines (2Q.0113).
90 days
Any open burning associated with subject
proposal must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC
2D.1900
N/A 60 days
(90 days)
Demolition or renovations of structures
containing asbestos material must be in
compliance with 15 A NCAC 20.1110 (a) (1)
which requires notification and removal prior to
demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919-707-5950
Please Note - The Health Hazards Control Unit (HHCU) of the N.C.
Department of Health and Human Services, must be notified of plans to
demolish a building, including residences for commercial or industrial
expansion, even if no asbestos is present in the building.
60 days
(90 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres are to be disturbed. Plan must be filed with and approved
by applicable Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30 days before beginning activity. A NPDES Construction
Stormwater permit (NCG010000) is also usually issued should design features meet minimum requirements. A fee of
$100 for the first acre or any part of an acre. An express review option is available with additional fees.
20 days
(30 days)
Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDOT’s approved program. Particular
attention should be given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable
Stormwater conveyances and outlets.
(30 days)
Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with Local Government’s approved program.
Particular attention should be given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well
as stable Stormwater conveyances and outlets.
Based on Local
Program
Compliance with 15A NCAC 04B .0125 – Buffers Zones for Trout Waters shall have an undisturbed buffer zone 25 feet wide or of sufficient width
to confine visible siltation within the twenty-five percent (25%) of the buffer zone nearest the land-disturbing activity, whichever is greater.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H .0126 - NPDES Stormwater Program which regulates three types of activities: Industrial,
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System & Construction activities that disturb ≥1 acre.
30-60 days
(90 days)
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 -State Stormwater Permitting Programs regulate site development and post-
construction stormwater runoff control. Areas subject to these permit programs include all 20 coastal counties, and
various other counties and watersheds throughout the state.
45 days
(90 days)
167
Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh
Project Number: 24-0274 Due Date: 5/10/2024
County: Orange
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Normal Process
Time
(Statutory time
limit)
Mining Permit
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DEQ Bond amount
varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Affected
area greater than one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond
must be received before the permit can be issued.
30 days
(60 days)
Dam Safety Permit
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to prepare plans, inspect
construction, and certify construction is according to DEQ approved
plans. May also require a permit under mosquito control program. And
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary
to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of $200.00 must
accompany the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage, or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
30 days
(60 days)
Oil Refining Facilities N/A 90-120 days
(N/A)
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
File surety bond of $5,000 with DEQ running to State of NC conditional
that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be
plugged according to DEQ rules and regulations.
10 days
N/A
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with DEQ at least 10 days prior to issue of permit.
Application by letter. No standard application forms.
10 days
N/A
State Lakes Construction Permit
Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include
descriptions & drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian
property
15-20 days
N/A
401 Water Quality Certification
Compliance with the T15A 02H .0500 Certifications are required
whenever construction or operation of facilities will result in a
discharge into navigable water as described in 33 CFR part 323.
60 days
(130 days)
Compliance with Catawba, Goose Creek, Jordan Lake, Randleman, Tar Pamlico or Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules is required. Buffer requirements:
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/401-wetlands-buffer-permits/401-riparian-
buffer-protection-program
Nutrient Offset: Loading requirements for nitrogen and phosphorus in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins, and in the Jordan and Falls Lake
watersheds, as part of the nutrient-management strategies in these areas. DWR nutrient offset information:
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/nonpoint-source-management/nutrient-offset-information
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 - $475.00 fee must accompany application 75 days
(150 days)
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $100.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 days)
Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation
operation.
Plans and specifications for the construction, expansion, or alteration of a public water system must be approved by the
Division of Water Resources/Public Water Supply Section prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of construction
as per 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq., Plans and specifications should be submitted to 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27699-1634. All public water supply systems must comply with state and federal drinking water monitoring
requirements. For more information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919) 707-9100.
30 days
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line relocation must be submitted to
the Division of Water Resources/Public Water Supply Section at 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-
1634. For more information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919) 707-9100.
30 days
Plans and specifications for the construction, expansion, or alteration of the water system must be approved through the delegated
plan approval authority. Please contact them at for further information.
168
Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh
Project Number: 24-0274 Due Date: 5/10/2024
County: Orange
Other Comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to comment authority)
Division Initials No
comment
Comments Date
Review
DAQ SH See checked boxes above. 5/16/2024
DWR-WQROS
(Aquifer & Surface)
JM
&
& See checked boxes above. A stream is depicted on the NRCS Soils
Survey and may be subject to the riparian buffer rules. Please check with
Orange county for applicability.
4/24/2024
DWR-PWS TP See checked boxes above. 5/7/2024
DEMLR (LQ & SW) CA See checked boxes above. 5/13/2024
DWM – UST MRP See checked box above. 5/9/2024
Other Comments / /
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211
Phone: 828-296-4500
Fax: 828-299-7043
Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714,
Fayetteville, NC 28301-5043
Phone: 910-433-3300
Fax: 910-486-0707
Mooresville Regional Office
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301,
Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone: 704-663-1699
Fax: 704-663-6040
Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive,
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: 919-791-4200
Fax: 919-571-4718
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall,
Washington, NC 27889
Phone: 252-946-6481
Fax: 252-975-3716
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.,
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: 910-796-7215
Fax: 910-350-2004
Winston-Salem Regional Office
450 Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300,
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Phone: 336-776-9800
Fax: 336-776-9797
169
Date: May 6, 2024
To: Michael Scott, Director
Division of Waste Management
Through: Janet Macdonald
Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch
From: Katie C Tatum
Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch
Subject: SEPA Project # 24-0274 Childs Pace Properties, LLC/Orange County, Orange County, North
Carolina
The Superfund Section has reviewed the proximity of sites under its jurisdiction to the Childs Pace
Properties, LLC/Orange County project. The proposed project is for the expansion of the existing daycare facility
located at 735 Erwin Rd, Durham to allow for 46 children.
No (0) Superfund Section sites and no (0) Brownfields Program Sites were identified within one mile of
the project as shown on the attached report.
Please contact Janet Macdonald at 919.707.8349 if you have any questions concerning the
Superfund Section review portion of this SEPA/NEPA inquiry.
170
Superfund & Brownfield Sites SEPA/NEPA Review Report
Area of Interest (AOI) Information Orange County SEPA project 24-0274
Area : 2,285.19 acres
May 6 2024 14:12:43 Eastern Daylight Time
171
Superfund and Brownfield Sites
Orange County SEPA project 24-0274
Summary
Name Count Area(acres)Length(mi)
Certified DSCA Sites 0 N/A N/A
Federal Remediation Branch Sites 0 N/A N/A
Inactive Hazardous Sites 0 N/A N/A
Pre-Regulatory Landfill Sites 0 N/A N/A
Brownfields Program Sites 0 N/A N/A
172
Project Number: 24-0274 Date Received: 4-22-2024
Department of Environmental Quality
Project Review
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed. No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments)
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
This Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Air Quality
Waste Mgmt
Water Resources Mgmt (Public
Water, Planning & Water
Quality Program)
DWR-Transportation Unit
Air
DWR
DWR - Public Water
DEMLR (LQ & SW)
DWM
Coastal Management
Marine Fisheries
CC & PS Div. of
Emergency Mgmt
DMF-Shellfish Sanitation
Wildlife Olivia
Wildlife/DOT
County: Orange
Due Date: 5-10-2024
Project Description: Environmental Assessment -Special Use Permit (SUP) Application for proposed
project to expand existing day care facility located at 735 Erwin Road, Durham, NC
(PIN 0801-13-1208); a modification to a 2002 SUP to allow for 46 children.
Asheville
Fayetteville
Mooresville
Raleigh
Washington
Wilmington
Winston Salem
4/25/2024 DWR/WRM David Wainwright
X
173
May 9, 2024
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kadisha Molyneaux kadisha.molyneaux@doa.nc.gov
North Carolina State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
FROM: Ramona M. Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Expand day care facility, 735 Erwin Road, Durham, Orange County, 24-E-4600-0274,
GS 24-1192
Thank you for your email of April 22, 2024, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or
environmental.review@dncr.nc.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
174
Control No.: 24-E-4600-0274 Date Received: 4/22/2024
Agency Response: 5/22/2024County.: ORANGE
Review Closed: 5/22/2024
JINTAO WEN
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DPS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Project Information
Type:
Applicant:
Project Desc.:Special Use Permit (SUP) Application for proposed project to expand existing day care facility
located at 735 Erwin Road, Durham, NC (PIN 0801-13-1208); a modification to a 2002 SUP to
allow for 46 children.
As a result of this review the following is submitted:
No Comment Comments Below Documents Attached
Reviewed By: JINTAO WEN Date: 5/13/2024
State Environmental Policy Act ironmental Assessment
CHILDS PACE PROPERTIES, LLC
175
Control No.: 24-E-4600-0274 Date Received: 4/22/2024
Agency Response: 5/22/2024County.: ORANGE
Review Closed: 5/22/2024
DEVON BORGARDT
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF NATURAL & CULTURAL
RESOURCE
Project Information
Type:
Applicant:
Project Desc.:Special Use Permit (SUP) Application for proposed project to expand existing day care facility
located at 735 Erwin Road, Durham, NC (PIN 0801-13-1208); a modification to a 2002 SUP to
allow for 46 children.
As a result of this review the following is submitted:
No Comment Comments Below Documents Attached
SHPO No Comments GS 24-1192
Reviewed By: DEVON BORGARDT Date: 5/9/2024
State Environmental Policy Act ironmental Assessment
CHILDS PACE PROPERTIES, LLC
176
Control No.: 24-E-4600-0274 Date Received: 4/22/2024
Agency Response: 5/22/2024County.: ORANGE
Review Closed: 5/22/2024
DIANNE FARRER
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
Project Information
Type:
Applicant:
Project Desc.:Special Use Permit (SUP) Application for proposed project to expand existing day care facility
located at 735 Erwin Road, Durham, NC (PIN 0801-13-1208); a modification to a 2002 SUP to
allow for 46 children.
As a result of this review the following is submitted:
No Comment Comments Below Documents Attached
Reviewed By: DIANNE FARRER Date: 5/16/2024
State Environmental Policy Act ironmental Assessment
CHILDS PACE PROPERTIES, LLC
177
Control No.: 24-E-4600-0274 Date Received: 4/22/2024
Agency Response: 5/22/2024County.: ORANGE
Review Closed: 5/22/2024
JESSICA MOSLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
Project Information
Type:
Applicant:
Project Desc.:Special Use Permit (SUP) Application for proposed project to expand existing day care facility
located at 735 Erwin Road, Durham, NC (PIN 0801-13-1208); a modification to a 2002 SUP to
allow for 46 children.
As a result of this review the following is submitted:
No Comment Comments Below Documents Attached
Reviewed By: JESSICA MOSLEY Date: 5/15/2024
State Environmental Policy Act ironmental Assessment
CHILDS PACE PROPERTIES, LLC
178
Control No.: 24-E-4600-0274 Date Received: 4/22/2024
Agency Response: 5/22/2024County.: ORANGE
Review Closed: 5/22/2024
LYN BILES
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Project Information
Type:
Applicant:
Project Desc.:Special Use Permit (SUP) Application for proposed project to expand existing day care facility
located at 735 Erwin Road, Durham, NC (PIN 0801-13-1208); a modification to a 2002 SUP to
allow for 46 children.
As a result of this review the following is submitted:
No Comment Comments Below Documents Attached
Reviewed By: LYN BILES Date: 5/21/2024
State Environmental Policy Act ironmental Assessment
CHILDS PACE PROPERTIES, LLC
179
From: Corey Liles <cliles@townofchapelhill.org>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2024 12:15 PM
To: Ashley E. Moncado
Cc: Judy Johnson; Cy Stober; Patrick R. Mallett; Taylor Perschau; Britany Waddell
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] RE: Special Use Permit Application (SUP24-0009) - Chapel
Hill Joint Development Review Area
Hi Ashley,
Thank you for giving Chapel Hill Planning staff the chance to look at this proposed daycare expansion
near our jurisdiction. A group of us looked over the plans this week. Here are the comments that came
up during our courtesy review:
· Should the applicant consider some safety improvements at the driveway entrance? For
example, warning signage, cleared vegetation, and/or a convex mirror for better sight distance.
A few folks on our team who commute using this section of Erwin Rd noted that the visibility
along this stretch is not great. More people coming to and from the site could be a safety
concern.
· Google Streetview (dated Jan 2023) shows a large tire pile next to the building. Is that still
present, and if so will they be removing it?
· We wondered if plans should be shared with Durham City Fire, for any comments they have on
the driveway design. For example, are they supportive of the compacted all-weather surface,
and does the concrete pavement for ADA spaces need to be heavy duty? Our assumption is that
Durham could end up being the first emergency responders based on the site’s proximity to
Durham Fire Station 11. If y’all have a different understanding of how fire response will be
handled, feel free to disregard this comment.
Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Hope everything goes well as this moves through the
process.
Thanks,
Corey
Corey Liles, Planning Manager
Planning Department | Town of Chapel Hill
405 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd. | Chapel Hill NC 27514
direct: 919-969-5008 | cell: 919-949-4066
cliles@townofchapelhill.org
Planning main: 919-968-2728 | planning@townofchapelhill.org
From: Judy Johnson <jjohnson@townofchapelhill.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2024 2:33 PM
To: Corey Liles <cliles@townofchapelhill.org>
Subject: FW: Special Use Permit Application (SUP24-0009) - Chapel Hill Joint Development Review Area
180
From: Ashley E. Moncado <amoncado@orangecountync.gov>
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2024 11:40 AM
To: Britany Waddell <bwaddell@townofchapelhill.org>; Judy Johnson <jjohnson@townofchapelhill.org>
Cc: Cy Stober <cstober@orangecountync.gov>; Patrick R. Mallett <pmallett@orangecountync.gov>;
Taylor Perschau <tperschau@orangecountync.gov>
Subject: Special Use Permit Application (SUP24-0009) - Chapel Hill Joint Development Review Area
Good Morning,
Orange County has received a Special Use Permit (SUP) Application (attached) for a Care Facility. The
request is to modify an existing SUP to allow for an increase in children. The parcel (PIN 0801-13-1208) is
located in the Chapel Hill Joint Development Review Area. This application is scheduled for the July 17
Board of Adjustment Meeting. The full application package, including the site plan, can be found on the
Orange County Permitting Portal.
Please feel free to review and let us know if you have any questions. We are requesting any comments
to be provided to us within 30 days in order to meet BOA agenda review dates.
Thank you,
Ashley
Ashley Moncado, AICP
Planner III
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
Office: 919-245-2589
131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201, P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278
Applications, Forms, and Submittal Information
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132, correspondence sent and received from this account is a public record and may
be disclosed to third parties.
Caution external email: Don't click links or attachments from unknown senders. To check or report
click the Phish Alert Button
181
From:Dockery, Jessica
To:Ashley E. Moncado
Cc:Cy Stober; Patrick R. Mallett; Taylor Perschau; Larkins, Leigha; Dobrzenski, Bo
Subject:[EXTERNAL MAIL!] RE: Orange County Courtesy Review- Special Use Permit Application (SUP24-0009)
Date:Thursday, May 2, 2024 1:37:53 PM
Attachments:image002.png
Ashley,
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review and comment. Since the parcel is
almost entirely in Orange County, the SUP was issued by Orange County, and the new SUP
will be issued by Orange County, we do not need to review this increase in intensification of
use.
From: Ashley E. Moncado <amoncado@orangecountync.gov>
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2024 12:45 PM
To: Dockery, Jessica <Jessica.Dockery@durhamnc.gov>
Cc: Cy Stober <cstober@orangecountync.gov>; Patrick R. Mallett <pmallett@orangecountync.gov>;
Taylor Perschau <tperschau@orangecountync.gov>
Subject: Orange County Courtesy Review- Special Use Permit Application (SUP24-0009)
Good Afternoon,
Orange County has received a Special Use Permit (SUP) Application (attached) for a Child Care
Facility. The request is to modify the existing SUP to allow for an increase in children. The parcel is
located at 735 Erwin Road (Orange County PIN 0801-13-1208). Due to the proximity to the Durham
County line, Planning staff wanted to send along for courtesy review.
This application is scheduled for the July 17 Board of Adjustment Meeting. The full application
package, including the site plan, can be found on the Orange County Permitting Portal.
Please feel free to review and let us know if you have any questions. We are requesting any
comments to be provided to us within 30 days in order to meet BOA agenda review dates.
Thank you,
Ashley
Ashley Moncado, AICP
Planner III
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
Office: 919-245-2589
131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201, P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278
Applications, Forms, and Submittal Information
182
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132, correspondence sent and received from this account is a public record and
may be disclosed to third parties.
183
PLANNING and INSPECTIONS
Cy Stober, AICP, Director | cstober@orangecountync.gov | 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 | 919.245.2575
June 10, 2024
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
Childs Pace Properties (SUP) Application
SUP24-0009
PIN: 0801-13-1208
A complete Environmental Assessment (EA) application for the Childs Pace Properties Special
Use Permit (SUP) Application, for the property located at 735 Erwin Road, Durham with PIN
0801-13-1208 (hereafter, the 'Project'), has been received and reviewed by the Orange County
Planning and Inspections Department. The EA application, SUP application, and site plan were
sent to local, state, and federal agencies for review.
On April 17, 2024, the applicant submitted an Environmental Assessment application as
required within Section 6.16 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance. Staff did
not identify any element of the Project requiring the completion/submittal of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). In addition, an EIS was not recommended by any local, state, or
federal agency.
Based on the information contained within the EA application, SUP application, and site plan,
Orange County Planning staff review, and comments received from local, state, and federal
agencies, staff makes a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Project.
Sincerely,
Patrick Mallett
Patrick Mallett
Deputy Director, Development Services
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
184
STANDARDS EXAMINED AND EVIDENCE RECEIVED
BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
CHILDS PACE PROPERTIES, LLC
PROPOSING A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO EXISTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT
ON A PARCEL OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 735 ERWIN ROAD
(PIN 0801-13-1208)
As required under Section 2.7.14 Modifications to Approved Plans of the Orange County Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO), an amended site plan and written narrative is required for a major
modification to an approved Special Use Permit. Such modifications shall comply with general
and specific standards as set forth in Section(s) 5.3.2 and any use specific standards of the UDO.
Section 5.3.2(A)(2) of the UDO requires written findings certifying compliance with the following:
(1)The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if
located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as
submitted;
(2)The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use
is a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value
of contiguous property); and
(3)The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan
submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use
is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as
embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof,
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners.
In addition, the Board shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with the
following specific standards:
(1)Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as
outlined within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO.
(2)Specific regulations governing the development of care facility as set forth in
Section 5.8.2 of the UDO.
(3)Section 5.3.2(B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of:
a.Sewage disposal facilities, solid waste, and water;
b.Police, fire, and rescue squad protection;
c.Vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site;
d.Other use specific standards as set forth within the UDO.
(4)The general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2(A) (2).
Listed below are the findings of the Orange Planning staff regarding the application in question.
The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Board of Adjustment
in its deliberations.
Attachment 6A 185
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOF
Per Att 6 (b)
Submittal Requirements for all SUP Applications
Proper forms Section 2.2 Staff Testimony
Application (Attachment 1) 1
Fees paid Section 2.2.4(D) Application (Attachment 1)
[Fees paid at time of submittal.] 1
Owner Information Section
2.7.3(B)(2)
Application (Attachment 1)
[Childs Pace Properties, LLC
114 Yeargen Place
Chapel Hill, NC 27516]
1, 2
Amended Site Plan Section
2.7.14(E)(1) Application (Attachment 1) 2
Written narrative outlining the
specific changes requested
Section
2.7.14(E)(1) Application (Attachment 1) 2
List of parcels within 1,000 feet Section
2.7.3(B)(5) Application (Attachment 1) 2
Elevations of all structures Section
2.7.3(B)(6)
Application (Attachment 1)
[No new structures are
proposed.]
2
Environmental Assessment
(or EIS)
Section
2.7.3(B)(7)
Environmental Assessment of
the Application (Attachment 1)
[EIS Not Required]
2
Method of Debris Disposal Section
2.7.3(B)(8)
Site Plan of the Application
(Attachment 1) 2
Development Schedule Section
2.7.3(B)(9)
Exhibit G of the Application
(Attachment 1) 2
Extended Vesting Request Section
2.7.3(B)(10)
Attachment 5 – Response to
DAC Comments
[Extended vesting period was
not requested.]
N/A
Submittal Requirements
(a) Where a State license is
required to operate the facility,
evidence that the minimum
Section
5.8.2(B)(1)(a)
Application (Attachment 1)
[The applicant has provided the
required license as part of the
application package.]
2, 7
186
requirements to qualify for said
license have been, or will be,
met shall be submitted
(b) A floor plan of the
proposed facility, showing the
use and dimensions of each
room and the location of
entrances and exits.
5.8.2(B)(1)(b) Application (Attachment 1)
[The applicant has provided the
required floor plan as part of
the application package.]
2, 8
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOF
Notification Requirements for all Evidentiary Hearings
Mailed Notice all adjacent
property owners (at least 10
days but no more than 25 days
prior)
Sections
2.7.5(B) and
2.7.6(A)(1)
NIM and BOA Materials (Attachments 3
& 4)
NIM notices mailed by applicant May 6,
2024 prior to May 20 NIM.
BOA Public Hearing Notices mailed by
staff on July 10, 2024. Certification
available in Attachment 4.
10, 11
Sign Posting on Property (at
least 10 days prior)
Sections
2.7.5(D) and
2.7.6(A)(2)
NIM and BOA Materials (Attachments 3
& 4)
NIM signs posted by staff on May 6,
2024 prior to May 20 NIM. Photo
documentation available in Attachment
4.
BOA signs posted by staff on July 9.
Certification and photo documentation
available in Attachment 4.
12
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOF
Waste, Safety and Access Requirements for all SUPs
Waste Disposal
Method and adequacy of
provision for sewage disposal
facilities, solid waste and water
service.
Section
5.3.2(B)(1)
Exhibit B – Narrative of the Application
(Attachment 1)
Site Plan of the Application
(Attachment 1)
[Both Environmental Health and Solid
Waste have indicated they have no
concerns.]
2, 13
Safety Section
5.3.2(B)(2)
Site Plan of the Application
(Attachment 1) 2, 14
187
Method and adequacy of
police, fire and rescue squad
protection.
[Fire Marshal has indicated that they
have no concerns. Memo available in
Project Correspondence and DAC
Comments (Attachment 5).]
Vehicle Access
Method and adequacy of
vehicle access to the site and
traffic conditions around the
site.
Section
5.3.2(B)(3)
Site Plan of the Application
(Attachment 1)
[NCDOT District Office has indicated that
they have no concerns. Email available
in Attachment 5.]
2, 15
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOF
Standards Specific to this Use: Care Facility Use
Site Plan
A site plan prepared in
accordance with Section 2.5
Site Plan Review
Section 2.5
Site Plan of the Application
(Attachment 1)
[Site plan is in compliance with Section
2.5 of the UDO.]
2, 16
Standards of Evaluation
(a) Facilities involving the care
of children and adolescents
shall be located in an area
which is free from conditions
dangerous to the physical and
moral welfare of the children.
Section
5.8.2(B)(2)(a)
Project Correspondence and DAC
Comments (Attachment 5)
[The proposed expansion to the existing
facility has been reviewed by Orange
County DAC including Planning, Building
Inspections, NCDOT, Environmental
Health, Solid Waste, and Emergency
Services for compliance with Orange
County Ordinances, State Building
Code, Health Code, and Fire Code.]
2, 18
(b) Where a State license is
required to operate the facility,
the applicant shall demonstrate
the minimum requirements to
qualify for said license are
satisfied.
Section
5.8.2(B)(2)(b) Application (Attachment 1)
[The applicant has provided the required
license as part of the application
package.]
2, 19
(c) There is direct frontage and
access on a public State-
maintained road.
Section
5.8.2(B)(2)(c)
Site Plan of the Application
(Attachment 1)
[The site has direct access to Erwin
Road, which is a State maintained road.]
2, 20
188
(d) Adequate access to and
from the site as well as
adequate space off the road
right of way, is provided for the
safe pick up and discharge of
clients and is provided in such
a manner that traffic generated
by the facility is not disruptive
to adjacent residentially
developed properties.
Section
5.8.2(B)(2)(d) Site Plan of the Application
(Attachment 1)
[The proposed driveway shall provide
adequate space for safe pick up and
discharge of children without impacting
adjacent parles or Erwin Road.]
2, 21
(e) All client pick up and drop
offs shall be on site, with
proper vehicle stacking area
equivalent to three cars.
Section
5.8.2(B)(2)(e)
Site Plan of the Application
(Attachment 1)
[The proposed driveway area shall
provide a proper stacking area as
indicated on the site plan.]
2, 22
(f) The site plan shall show
how the facilities will be
screened from adjacent
properties. A Type-B, 30-foot
buffer shall be provided around
the facility and outdoor area in
accordance with Section 6.8.6.
These buffers will effectively
screen the view of any outdoor
area, and reduce noise
associated with the facility.
Section
5.8.2(B)(2)(f) Site Plan of the Application
(Attachment 1)
Exhibit E – Proposed Conditions
[Existing vegetation is contained within
the 30-foot buffer area. The applicant
has submitted a condition for this
standard.]
2, 23
(g) Each facility is required to
provide a minimum of 75
square feet of outdoor space
for every client in care. This
space may not be located in a
required buffer or in an area,
which is used or reserved for
use as a sewage disposal
nitrification field.
Section
5.8.2(B)(2)(g)
Site Plan of the Application
(Attachment 1)
[Minimum outdoor space has been
provided on the site plan.]
2, 24
(h) Fencing and/or screening is
to be provided which ensures
the protection of the clients
receiving care and protects
adjacent residentially
developed properties from
trespass.
Section
5.8.2(B)(2)(h)
Site Plan of the Application
(Attachment 1)
[A note has been provided on the site
plan.]
2, 25
189
(i) All gates shall be self-
closing and self-latching.
Section
5.8.2(B)(2)(i)
Site Plan of the Application
(Attachment 1)
[A note has been provided on the site
plan.]
2, 26
(j) Each facility approved by the
Board of Adjustment shall be
reviewed annually by the
Planning Director to ensure
compliance with the standards
of evaluation for such facilities
and any conditions attached to
the application by the Board of
Adjustment. Any change in the
operation of the facility, which
deviates from the original
standards and conditions will
constitute a modification and
will require the approval of the
Board of Adjustment. In
determining whether a change
in the operation of the facility
has occurred, the Planning
Director shall be guided by the
procedures and criteria
contained in Sections 2.7.14
and 5.8.2(B).
Section
5.8.2(B)(2)(j)
Attachment 2 – Staff Report
[Staff has submitted a condition for this
standard.]
2, 27
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOF
General Welfare, Value & Harmony Standards
The use (will / will not)
maintain or promote the public
health, safety and general
welfare, if located where
proposed and developed and
operated according to the plan
as submitted.
Section 5.3.2
(A)(2)(a)
Application package as contained in
Attachment 1 inclusive including, but not
limited to:
• Narrative;
• Site Plan;
• Proposed Conditions;
• Environmental Assessment (EA)
Application; and
• Site Plan.
Project Correspondence and DAC
Comments (Attachment 5)
28
The use (will / will not)
maintain or enhance the value
of contiguous property (unless
the use is a public necessity, in
Section 5.3.2
(A)(2)(b)
Application package (Attachment 1);
Staff Report (Attachment 2);
29
190
which case the use need not
maintain or enhance the value
of contiguous property).
Project Correspondence and DAC
Comments (Attachment 5); and
Evidence submitted by applicant
The location and character of
the use, if developed according
to the plan submitted, (will /
will not) be in harmony with
the area in which it is to be
located and the use is in
compliance with the plan for
the physical development of
the County as embodied in
these regulations or in the
Comprehensive Plan, or
portion thereof, adopted by the
Board of County
Commissioners.
Section 5.3.2
(A)(2)(c)
Application package as contained in
Attachment 1 inclusive including, but not
limited to:
• Narrative;
• Environmental Assessment (EA)
Application;
• Site Plan; and
• Proposed Conditions
Staff Report (Attachment 2)
Project Correspondence and DAC
Comments (Attachment 5).
30
191
FINDINGS OF FACT
BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
CHILDS PACE PROPERTIES, LLC
PROPOSING A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO EXISTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT
ON A PARCEL OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 735 ERWIN ROAD
SUP24-0009
(PIN 0801-13-1208)
Based upon the competent, material and substantial evidence received at the evidentiary hearing,
the Board of Adjustments gave each piece of evidence its due weight and makes the following
Findings of Fact:
Application Components
1.Childs Pace Properties, LLC filed an application for a Special Use Permit (SUP) Major
Modification related to Orange County PIN 0801-13-1208 on April 17, 2024 for Use # 19,
Care Facility with a fee paid.
2.The application included an amended site plan, written narrative outlining the specific
changes requested, and attachments as included in the agenda materials received by the
BOA, specifically: Attachment 1.
3.The existing buildings on the property include: The parcel includes an existing single-
family home, barn, and three additional accessory structures. The barn and accessory
structures shall not be utilized for the care facility use.
4.The proposed buildings include: No structures are proposed.
5.The access, parking, and care facility include: The project will be utilizing the existing
ingress/egress on Erwin Road. Access on the site is proposed via a 20 ft. wide gravel
driveway. Parking requirements are met.
6.The landscaping includes: Existing vegetation is located along the perimeter of the site.
7.Where a State license is required to operate the facility, evidence that the minimum
requirements to qualify for said license have been, or will be, met shall be submitted:
The applicant has provided the required license as part of the application package
(Attachment 1).
8.A floor plan of the proposed facility, showing the use and dimensions of each room and
the location of entrances and exits: The applicant has provided the required floor plan as
part of the application package (Attachment 1).
9.Ashley Moncado, a member of the Orange County Planning & Inspections Department
staff, provided sworn testimony regarding receipt of the following: 10 copies of site plans,
a list of parcels within 1,000 feet, 10 copies of Environmental Assessment, method of
debris disposal, and development schedule.
Notice Requirements
10.Notices of a Neighborhood Information Meeting were mailed on May 6, 2024 by the
applicant and the meeting was held on May 20, 2024.
11.Notices of the BOA Evidentiary Hearing were mailed on July 10, 2024 and the meeting
held on July 24, 2024.
12.Signs were posted on May 6, 2024 for the Neighborhood Information Meeting and on July
9, 2024 for the Evidentiary Hearing.
Waste, Safety & Access
13.The waste disposal methods were reviewed by Victoria Hudson, Environmental Health
Director with the Orange County Environmental Health Department, and Matthew Taylor,
Attachment 6B
192
Environmental Enforcement Supervisor with the Orange County Solid Waste Department.
Neither staff indicated any concern regarding the planned methods.
14. The method of police, fire and rescue squad protection were reviewed by Elizabeth
Farnan, Fire and Life Safety Chief with the Orange County Fire Marshall’s Office. There
was no indication of concern.
15. The method of vehicle access was reviewed by NCDOT District Office and indicated no
concerns.
Care Facility
16. Site plan submitted: Site plan was provided in compliance with Section 2.5 of the UDO.
17. The lot size is: +/- 5.48 acres are subject to the SUP for Use 19, Care Facility.
18. Facilities involving the care of children and adolescents shall be located in an area which
is free from conditions dangerous to the physical and moral welfare of the children: The
proposed expansion to the existing facility has been reviewed by Orange County DAC
including Planning, Building Inspections, NCDOT, Environmental Health, Solid Waste,
and Emergency Services for compliance with Orange County Ordinances, State Building
Code, Health Code, and Fire Code.
19. Where a State license is required to operate the facility, the applicant shall demonstrate
the minimum requirements to qualify for said license are satisfied: The applicant has
provided the required license as part of the application package (Attachment 1).
20. There is direct frontage and access on a public State-maintained road: The site has
direct access to Erwin Road, which is a state maintained road.
21. Adequate access to and from the site as well as adequate space off the road right of
way, is provided for the safe pick up and discharge of clients and is provided in such a
manner that traffic generated by the facility is not disruptive to adjacent residentially
developed properties: The proposed driveway shall provide adequate space for safe pick
up and discharge of children without impacting adjacent parles or Erwin Road.
22. All client pick up and drop offs shall be on site, with proper vehicle stacking area
equivalent to three cars: The proposed driveway area shall provide a proper stacking
area as indicated on the site plan (Attachment 1).
23. The site plan shall show how the facilities will be screened from adjacent properties. A
Type-B, 30-foot buffer shall be provided around the facility and outdoor area in
accordance with Section 6.8.6. These buffers will effectively screen the view of any
outdoor area, and reduce noise associated with the facility: Existing vegetation is
contained within the 30-foot buffer area. The applicant has submitted a condition for this
standard.
24. Each facility is required to provide a minimum of 75 square feet of outdoor space for
every client in care. This space may not be located in a required buffer or in an area,
which is used or reserved for use as a sewage disposal nitrification field: Minimum
outdoor space has been provided on the site plan (Attachment 1).
25. Fencing and/or screening is to be provided which ensures the protection of the clients
receiving care and protects adjacent residentially developed properties from trespass: A
note has been provided on the site plan (Attachment 1).
26. All gates shall be self-closing and self-latching: A note has been provided on the site
plan (Attachment 1).
27. Each facility approved by the Board of Adjustment shall be reviewed annually by the
Planning Director to ensure compliance with the standards of evaluation for such
facilities and any conditions attached to the application by the Board of Adjustment. Any
change in the operation of the facility, which deviates from the original standards and
193
conditions will constitute a modification and will require the approval of the Board of
Adjustment. In determining whether a change in the operation of the facility has
occurred, the Planning Director shall be guided by the procedures and criteria contained
in Sections 2.7.14 and 5.8.2(B): Staff Comment: Staff has submitted a condition for this
standard.
General Welfare, Value & Harmony
28. The expected value difference with the proposed use for contiguous property is: As
presented and entered as evidence on the evening of the evidentiary hearing.
29. The location and character of the use is: If developed according to the plan submitted and
in accordance with the conditions, the project will be in general harmony with the
surrounding area and the use would be in compliance with the plan for the physical
development of the County as embodied in the Unified Development Ordinance or in the
Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners.
30. The character of the area in which the use is located is: Rural with undeveloped parcels
and low-density residential.
194
CONCLUSIONS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
CHILDS PACE PROPERTIES, LLC
PROPOSING A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO EXISTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT
ON A PARCEL OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 735 ERWIN ROAD
SUP24-0009
(PIN 0801-13-1208)
When applying the adopted Findings of Fact to the relevant Standards found in the UDO, the
Orange County Board of Adjustments makes the following Conclusions:
1.All necessary submittal requirements were met, including:
a.Submittal of proper forms (UDO 2.2, Finding of Fact 1); and,
b.Fees paid (UDO 2.2.4(D), Finding of Fact 1); and,
c.The use was fully described (UDO 2.5.3(F) and 2.7.3(B)(1), Finding of Fact 2-6);
and,
d.Owner Information was provided (UDO 2.7.3(B)(2), Finding of Fact 1 and 2); and,
e.The facilities were described (UDO 2.7.3(B)(1), Finding of Fact 2-6); and,
f.Access, parking, and care facility use were identified (UDO 2.5.3(F), 2.5.3(L),
5.8.2, Finding of Fact 2 and 16); and,
g. Plans were identified (UDO 2.5.3(K) and 2.7.3(B)(1), Finding of Fact 2 and 16);
and,
h.Site plans were submitted, (UDO 2.5, Finding of Fact 2 and 16); and,
i.A list of parcels within 1,000’ was provided (UDO 2.7.3(B)(5), Finding of Fact 2)
and;
j.Environmental Assessment was submitted (UDO 2.7.3(B)(7), Finding of Fact 2);
and,
k.Method of Debris Removal was described (UDO 2.7.3(B)(8), Finding of Fact 2);
and,
l.Development Schedule was provided (UDO 2.7.3(B)(9), Finding of Fact 2), and
m.Where a State license is required to operate the facility, evidence that the minimum
requirements to qualify for said license have been, or will be, met shall be
submitted. (UDO Section 5.8.2(B)(1)(a), Finding of Fact 2 and 7).
n.A floor plan of the proposed facility, showing the use and dimensions of each room
and the location of entrances and exits. (UDO Section 5.8.2(B)(1)(b), Finding of
Fact 2 and 8).
2.Proper notice was provided as required by statute and ordinance, including:
a.Notice was mailed for the Neighborhood Information Meeting (UDO 2.7.5(B),
Finding of Fact 10); and,
b.Signs were posted for the Neighborhood Information Meeting (UDO 2.7.5(D),
Finding of Fact 12); and,
c. Notice was mailed for the Evidentiary Hearing (UDO 2.7.6(A)(1), Finding of Fact
11); and,
d.Signs were posted for the Evidentiary Hearing (UDO 2.7.6(A)(2), Finding of Fact
12).
3.Waste, Safety and Access requirements were met, including:
a.The method and adequacy of providing for sewage disposal facilities, solid waste
and water service is sufficient for the proposed use (UDO 5.3.2(B)(1), Finding of
Fact 2 and 13); and,
Attachment 6C
195
b. The method and adequacy of police fire and rescue squad protection is sufficient
for the proposed use (UDO 5.3.2(B)(2), Finding of Fact 2 and 14); and,
c. The method and adequacy of vehicle access to the site and traffic conditions
around the site are sufficient for the proposed use (UDO 5.3.2(B)(3), Finding of
Fact 2 and 15).
4. Standards specific to the Care Facility use were met, including:
a. A proper site plan submitted (UDO Section 2.5), Finding of Fact 2 and 16); and,
b. Facilities involving the care of children and adolescents shall be located in an area
which is free from conditions dangerous to the physical and moral welfare of the
children. (UDO Section 5.8.2(B)(2)(a)), Finding of Fact 2 and 18); and,
c. Where a State license is required to operate the facility, the applicant shall
demonstrate the minimum requirements to qualify for said license are satisfied.
(UDO Section 5.8.2(B)(2)(b)), Finding of Fact 2 and 19); and,
d. There is direct frontage and access on a public State-maintained Road (UDO
Section 5.8.2(B)(2)(c)), Finding of Fact 2 and 20); and,
e. Adequate access to and from the site as well as adequate space off the road right
of way, is provided for the safe pick up and discharge of clients and is provided in
such a manner that traffic generated by the facility is not disruptive to adjacent
residentially developed properties. (UDO Section 5.8.2(B)(2)(d)), Finding of Fact 2
and 21); and,
f. All client pick up and drop offs shall be on site, with proper vehicle stacking area
equivalent to three cars. (UDO Section 5.8.2(B)(2)(e)), Finding of Fact 2 and 22);
and,
g. The site plan shall show how the facilities will be screened from adjacent
properties. A Type-B, 30-foot buffer shall be provided around the facility and
outdoor area in accordance with Section 6.8.6. These buffers will effectively screen
the view of any outdoor area, and reduce noise associated with the facility. (UDO
Section 5.8.2(B)(2)(f)), Finding of Fact 2 and 23); and,
h. Each facility is required to provide a minimum of 75 square feet of outdoor space
for every client in care. This space may not be located in a required buffer or in an
area, which is used or reserved for use as a sewage disposal nitrification field.
(UDO Section 5.8.2(B)(2)(g)), Finding of Fact 2 and 24); and,
i. Fencing and/or screening is to be provided which ensures the protection of the
clients receiving care and protects adjacent residentially developed properties
from trespass. (UDO Section 5.8.2(B)(2)(h)), Finding of Fact 2 and 25); and,
j. All gates shall be self-closing and self-latching. (UDO Section 5.8.2(B)(2)(i)),
Finding of Fact 2 and 26); and,
k. Each facility approved by the Board of Adjustment shall be reviewed annually by
the Planning Director to ensure compliance with the standards of evaluation for
such facilities and any conditions attached to the application by the Board of
Adjustment. Any change in the operation of the facility, which deviates from the
original standards and conditions will constitute a modification and will require the
approval of the Board of Adjustment. In determining whether a change in the
operation of the facility has occurred, the Planning Director shall be guided by the
procedures and criteria contained in Sections 2.7.14 and 5.8.2(B). (UDO Section
5.8.2(B)(2)(j)), Finding of Fact 2 and 27)
5. General welfare, value and harmony standards applicable to all SUPs have been met,
including:
a. The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if
located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as
submitted (UDO 5.3.2(A)(2)(a), Finding of Fact 28); and,
196
b. The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (UDO
5.3.2(A)(2)(b), Finding of Fact 29); and,
c. The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan
submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use
is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as
embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof,
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (UDO 5.3.2(A)(2)(c), Finding of
Fact 30).
197
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT CASE BA24-0001
Meeting Date: July 24, 2024
Agenda
Item No. BA24-0001
SUBJECT: BA24-0001 (Barnett Variance)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: Yes
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1.Variance Application
2.Zoning Report
3.Public Notification Materials
4. Project Correspondence and
Development Advisory Committee
Comments
5.Findings of Fact
Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director,
Development Services (919) 245-2577
Lauren Coffey, Planner I
(919) 245-2598
PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing, receive testimony and evidence, and take action on a
VARIANCE application from the provisions of Section 6.13.4 (c) Minimum Buffer Widths for
Watershed Protection Overlay Districts of the Unified Development Ordinance (hereafter ‘UDO’).
Specifically, the applicant is requesting relief from the 150-foot reservoir buffer to renovate and
expand an existing A-frame styled residential structure.
BACKGROUND: The basic facts concerning the current application are as follows:
Owner: Beverly and James Barnett
2205 N. Bigelow
Peoria IL 61604
Applicant: Samuel Harrell
4511 Eno Cemetery Rd
Cedar Grove, NC 27231
Location: 4517 Eno Cemetery Rd. Please refer to Attachment 2 for a map of
the subject parcel.
Parcel Information: a.PINs: 9857-76-0674
b.Size of parcel: +/- 0.96 acres
c.Zoning of parcel: Agricultural Residential (AR); with Upper Eno
Critical Watershed Overlay District
198
d.Township: Cedar Grove
e.Future Land Use Map Designation: Agricultural Residential
(AR)
f.Growth Management System Designation: Rural
g.Roads: Frontage along Eno Cemetery Rd (SR 1383)
h.Water and Sewer Service: The property is not located within a
primary utility service area meaning water and sewer service is
provided by an individual well and septic system.
Surrounding Land Uses: a.NORTH: Property developed for what appears to be residential
purposes zoned AR;
b.SOUTH: Property developed for what appears to be residential
purposes zoned AR;
c.EAST: Lake Orange
d.WEST: Eno Cemetery Rd (SR 1383) and developed property
zoned AR.
Proposal: As detailed within Attachment 1, the applicant has applied for a VARIANCE from the
150-foot reservoir buffer to allow for the renovation and construction of an addition to the
existing nonconforming residential structure +/- 75 ft. from Lake Orange. This variance would
provide relief from the normal 150-foot. reservoir buffer, which covers approximately two-thirds
of the property.
The applicant is proposing to expand and renovate an existing A-frame residential structure on
the property, specifically an addition of 16’ by 34’ (544 sq. ft.). The applicant has stated the
addition shall be located at the farthest point possible away from the lake while still connected to
the original structure.
The applicant notes the need for the addition based on the structure’s original A-frame
construction, as there are no viable bedroom spaces or ability to meet accessibility needs and
various other building code requirements. However, due to setback relationships between
house, well, and septic, the applicant states there is no other viable configuration to provide for
an addition.
All renovations would be required to obtain all proper permitting through Orange County should
a Variance be granted.
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS:
Per Section 6.13.4 (c) Minimum Buffer Widths for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
development project(s) within the Upper Eno Critical Area Overlay District are required to
adhere to the following buffer requirement(s):
a. 80-foot stream buffer, when slopes are greater than 7.5%, applied to the outside of the
outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area (100 Year FloodZone)
199
b. 80-foot water body buffer, when slopes are greater than 7.5%, applied to the outside of
the outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area (100 Year FloodZone)
c. 80-foot floodplain buffer, when slopes are greater than 7.5%, applied to the outside of the
outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area (100 Year FloodZone)
d. 150-foot reservoir buffer applied to the outside of the outside of the Special Flood Hazard
Area (100 Year FloodZone)
STAFF COMMENT(S):
1. The application has been deemed complete.
2. As required under Section 2.12.6 of the UDO, staff notified all property owners within
1,000 feet of the subject property of the variance request. This notice also informed
parties of the date, time, and location of the public hearing where the request will be
reviewed. Copies of the letter, as well as our certification of mailing, are contained in
Attachment 3.
As of July 8, 2024, the writing of this abstract, staff has not received any
complaints/concerns resulting from property owners notified of the request.
3. Staff has determined the granting of the variance will not create issues for adjacent
property owners with respect to the development/re-development of their properties.
4. Staff determined the granting of the variance will not have a negative impact on existing
traffic service levels in the area or be consistent with applicable access management
standards.
5. As detailed within Section 2.10 Variances of the UDO, the Board is authorized to modify
or vary regulations when strict compliance with the regulation or standard would result in
unnecessary hardships upon the subject property.
6. In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.10.3 of the UDO, the Board may approve
a variance in cases where unnecessary hardships would result from carrying out the strict
letter of the UDO, when substantial evidence in the official record of the application
supports all of the following findings:
a. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the Ordinance. It
shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no
reasonable use can be made of the property.
b. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as
location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as
well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood
or general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance.
c. The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property
owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist
that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created
hardship.
d. The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the
Ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved.
200
7. Per Section 2.10.10 of the UDO, the Board is not empowered to grant a variance without
an affirmative finding of fact supported by substantial evidence in the record of the
proceedings before the Board.
Further, the Board may impose appropriate conditions provided same are reasonable
related to the variance request.
8. Per Section 2.12.4 of the UDO the affirmative vote of four of the members of the Board is
necessary to effect any variation of the Ordinance.
201
Page 1 of 6
Orange County Planning & Inspections Department
131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278
919-245-2575 or planningapps@orangecountync.gov
Appeal of Interpretation and Variance Application
Please check all applicable boxes and complete the required documentation. Additional information and submittal
requirements are contained in Sections 2.10 and 2.11 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
If completing by hand, please use black or blue ink.
* Please fill out all required fields
Date: ____________________ Request: Appeal of Interpretation Variance
Contact Information*
Property Owner(s):
Mailing Address:
Phone: Email:
Applicant (if different than property owner):
Mailing Address:
Phone: Email:
Agent:
Mailing Address:
Phone: Email:
Law Firm Name: Bar Number:
Note: Only attorneys are recommended to serve as agents during quasi-judicial hearings such as this request.
Property Information*
Parcel ID Number (PIN):
Address:
Appeal of Interpretation*
Matter Being Appealed (please select one)
Notice of Violation Final and Binding Determination Boundary Interpretation
Zoning Compliance Permit Other Permit:
Variance*
Specific Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section(s) Requiring Variance:
202
Page 2 of 6
Certification and Signatures*
Appeal of Interpretation Request
I, _________________________________, have standing as described in Exhibit A and hereby
appeal to the Board of Adjustment from an adverse decision of an Administrative Official of the
Planning and Development Department of the County of Orange, North Carolina made on the _______
day of ______________, 20_____ and attached as Exhibit B. I request an outcome as described in
Exhibit C.1 and for the reasons stated in Exhibit C.2. If I intend to present any evidence, that evidence
is listed in Exhibit D.
Variance Request
I, _________________________________, have standing as described in Exhibit A and hereby
request a variance from the UDO be granted by the Board of Adjustment from the UDO Sections listed
above. I request a variance as described and for the reasons stated in Exhibit B. If I intend to present
any evidence, that evidence is listed in Exhibit D.
STATEMENT BY APPLICANT: I certify that the information presented by me in this application is
accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
___________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Owner Signature(s) Applicant Signature (if different from owner)
___________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Date Date
Exhibit A – Statement of Standing*
I am the sole owner of the property subject to this application.
I have attached notarized letters authorizing this submittal from all entities or individuals with
ownership rights to the property.
I would suffer special damages distinct from the rest of the community as follows:
Appeal of Interpretation*
Exhibit B – Copy of Action Being Appealed
Please attach and label as “Exhibit B” the official document which you are appealing. The Board of
Adjustments DOES NOT have jurisdiction over advisory opinions of Orange County Staff. Only a
binding determination may be appealed. Such documents generally have the following words in all
capital and in bold: NOTICE OF VIOLATION, FINAL AND BINDING DETERMINATION, BOUNDARY
INTERPRETATION, or ZONING COMPLIANCE PERMIT. If you are unsure if a staff member’s email
or letter has binding force, please consider asking for clarification through a standalone document with
one of those terms in bold before seeking an appeal.
203
Page 3 of 6
Exhibit C.1 – Requested Relief
I request that the determination, order, or permit attached as Exhibit B be vacated.
I request that the determination, order, or permit attached as Exhibit B be modified as follows:
Exhibit C.2 – Applicant Argument and Reasoning
(attach additional sheets as necessary)
Variance*
Exhibit B – Explanation of Hardship
To qualify for a variance, the applicant must make four showings. Please describe below how
these will be made.
1. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. (It is not
necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the
property.)
204
Page 4 of 6
2. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size,
or topography. (Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from
conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public, may not be the basis for granting
a variance.)
3.The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. (The act
of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance
shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship.)
205
Page 5 of 6
4.The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such
that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved.
(attach additional sheets as necessary)
Exhibit D – Intended Evidence*
I intend to make only arguments and no further evidence is expected to be necessary.
I intend to offer the following evidence:
I intend to introduce the following document and have attached it follows:
Exhibit #1 entitled:
This is relevant to standards from Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Sections:
It demonstrates that:
Intend to call the following as a lay witness:
Lay Witness #1 (name):
Their intended testimony has been included in an affidavit attached as Exhibit:
This witness has personal knowledge of and will testify about:
This testimony is relevant to standards from UDO Sections:
The testimony will demonstrate that:
206
Page 6 of 6
Intend to call the following as an expert witness:
Expert Witness #1 (name):
Is being offered as an expert in:
They possess specialized knowledge in this field through the following training and/or experience:
They reviewed or examined the following data:
They used the following method of analysis when reviewing that data:
This expert opinion is relevant the standard at UDO Section:
It demonstrates that:
Their intended testimony has been included in an affidavit attached as Exhibit:
(attach additional sheets as necessary)
Section Completed by Staff
Zoning: Watershed:
Other overlay districts impacting property:
207
1 of 1
Monday, July 1, 2024 at 17:24:11 Eastern Daylight TimeMonday, July 1, 2024 at 17:24:11 Eastern Daylight Time
Subject:Subject:Orange County Zoning Report PIN 9857-76-0674
Date:Date:Tuesday, May 7, 2024 at 4:40:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From:From:Ashley E. Moncado
To:To:harrell@africaexchange.org
Attachments:Attachments:ZR (9857760674) LC 5-7-24.pdf
Good A&ernoon,
Staff was able to complete the Zoning Report sooner than expected for the parcel located at 4517 Eno
Cemetery Road. As you will note on the aFachment, in addiGon to the floodplain buffer, the exisGng
parcel also contains Lake Orange Reservoir buffer area, which encompasses the exisGng house. As a
result, the exisGng house is considered a non-conforming structure and cannot be expanded.
Please let us know if you have any quesGons.
Thank you,
Ashley
208
209
210
211
4517 Eno Cemetery Rd
4317 Eno Cemetery Rd
212
2013
4317 Eno Cemetery Rd
213
2021
4317 Eno Cemetery Rd
214
Flood
Panel:
9857J Upper Eno
Critical Area
Soil: GeB
Soil: W
Soil: TaD642640638636634632630628626624622620
618616ARENO CEMETERY RDParcel Data
Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 9857760674
Size: 0.96 acres
Relevant Documents for Register of Deeds
Plat Book/Page: 5 HAROLD E WALKER
Enforced by County: N/A
Enforced by Others: N/A
Zoning Information
Base Zoning District: Agricultural Residential (AR)
Min Lot Size: 40,000 sq. ft.
Min Lot Width: 150 ft.
Max Density: 1 dwelling per 2 acres
Overlay Zoning District(s): Upper Eno Critical Watershed
Max Impervious Surface: 5,567 sq. ft. based on sliding scale
Max Building Height: 25'
Building Setbacks: Front 40', Side 20', Rear 20'
Streams, Water Body, Floodplain Buffers
Stream/Water Bodies: 80 ft. stream and water body buffer; 150 ft. reservoir buffer
Floodplain: Special Flood Hazard Area (100 Year FloodZone); 500 Year Floodplain
Base Flood Elevation (BFE): 596 ft.
Minimum Finished Floor Elevation (FFE): 598 ft.
Land Disturbance Thresholds
Erosion Control: 10,000 sq. ft. Waiver needed if otherwise.
Stormwater Management: 21,780 for residential use, 12,000 for nonresidential use
High Quality Water Zone (Y/N): Yes
Disclaimer
This document was prepared using best available data. GIS imagery may be slightly
skewed and is not as accurate as a professional land survey. Wetland information
represented (if any) on this report does not constitute a jurisdictional determination or exact
location of wetland features.
Please contact staff at 919-245-2575 if you have floodplain, High Quality Water Zone, or
wetlands indicated on this report.
Date: 5/7/2024 by lcoffey
NOTE: Illustrated 620 ft. contour is based on GIS data and does not reflect recent
Lake Orange survey work.
Zoning Report
¯
Zoning
Parcels
Road Easement
Soils
Water Body
Watersheds
2' Contours (NCDOT)
1% Annual Chance of Flooding
Regulatory Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance of Flooding
Cross Section
FIRM
Floodplain Buffer 80ft
Reservoir Buffer 150ft
Stream Buffer 80ft
0 150
Feet
1 in =60 feet
O R A N G E C O U N T Y , N C
Data shown on this map is obtained from
Orange County GIS and is for reference only.
Exact locations and boundaries should be
verified.
Map prepared by Orange County Planning &
Inspections.
215
PLANNING and INSPECTIONS
Cy Stober, AICP, Director | cstober@orangecountync.gov | 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 | 919.245.2575
July 10, 2024
NOTICE OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING TO
REVIEW A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 4517 ENO CEMETERY RD
Dear Property Owner:
This notice is to inform you of a July 24, 2024 Board of Adjustment meeting, at which an request
for a Variance for a parcel located at 4517 Eno Cemetery Rd, Cedar Grove, NC (PIN: 9857-76-
0674) will be reviewed in a quasi-judicial public hearing. The +/-0.96-acre parcel is located
within the Cedar Grove Township. This notification is occurring in accordance with the
provisions of Section 2.10 Variances of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO).
The Variance request will be reviewed by the Orange County Board of Adjustment at 7:00 p.m.,
July 24, 2024 at the Whitted Meeting Facility (300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC).
NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED FOR YOUR PROPERTY. You are receiving this notice
because you own property located within 1,000-feet of parcel requested for a Variance.
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Parcel ID Number (PIN) 9857-76-0674
Owner Beverly and James Barnett
Applicant Samuel Harrell
Location 4517 Eno Cemetery Rd, Cedar Grove, NC
Acreage +/-0.96 acres
Current Zoning Agricultural Residential
Watershed Designation Upper Eno Critical Watershed
Under the provisions of the UDO, Residential development(s) within the Upper Eno Critical
Watershed are required to adhere to a reservoir buffer of 150 ft. applied to the outside of the
Special Flood Hazard Area (100-Year FloodZone).
The applicant has applied for a VARIANCE from the minimum 150 ft. reservoir buffer for the
purposes of construction an addition to an existing A-frame structure on the property. The
applicant notes the need for the addition based on the structure’s A-frame construction, as there
Attachment 3
216
are no viable bedroom spaces or ability to meet accessibility needs and code requirements.
However, due to setback relationships between house, well, and septic, the applicant states there
is no viable configuration to provide for an addition.
Section 2.10 of the UDO requires that the Board of Adjustment (BOA) hold a Public Hearing to
consider variance requests and that notices be sent to property owners within 1,000 feet of the
subject property informing them of the date, time, location, and purpose of the hearing. This
Public Hearing is intended to allow the BOA, property owners, and the applicant an opportunity
to review and discuss the request.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.10.3 of the UDO, the BOA may approve a
variance in cases where unnecessary hardships would result from carrying out the strict letter of
the UDO, when substantial evidence in the official record of the application supports all of the
following findings:
(A) Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the Ordinance. It
shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable
use can be made of the property.
(B) The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as
location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as
hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or general
public, may not be the basis for granting a variance.
(C) The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property
owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may
justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship.
(D) The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the
Ordinance, such that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved.
If you cannot attend the Board of Adjustment meeting and the website does not answer your
questions about the requested Variance, you may call 919-245-2575 during regular business
hours and you will be directed to a staff person who can assist you.
Sincerely,
Patrick Mallett
Patrick Mallett
Deputy Director, Development Services
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
217
PIN OWNER1_LASTOWNER1_FIRSTOWNER2_LASTOWNER2_FIRSTADDRESS1ADDRESS2 CITYSTATE ZIPCODE9857568462ODALYDENISE L TRUSTEE816 LAKEVIEW DRCEDAR GROVE NC 272319857568750HARTSELLM LYNETTEFUCHSLAURIE1010 LAKEVIEW DRCEDAR GROVE NC 272319857578033DEANJENNIFER C739 HAROLD'S NORTH FIELD DRCEDAR GROVE NC 2723194559857623476LAKE ORANGE INCPO BOX 127C/O JOHN TOLAR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789857642370ORANGECOUNTYPO BOX 8181HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789857653800HUSKINSMICHAEL HHUSKINS NANCY C712 LAKEVIEW DRCEDAR GROVE NC 2723191669857654561LEESHARON W4322 ENO CEMETERY RDCEDAR GROVE NC 2723194119857654632GORIADAMDYEAMY4328 ENO CEMETARY RDCEDAR GROVE NC 272319857657332BOSSHERRI MPO BOX 608HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789857658556CLAYTONGERALDINE T318 CRAWFORD RDHILLSBOROUGH NC 2727894949857659736BLANCOROBERTODEUTSCH BLANCO MEGHAN4405 ENO CEMETERYCEDAR GROVE NC 272319857660330RYSELLDENNIS R804 LAKEVIEW DRCEDAR GROVE NC 272319857661672AUSTINSETH M724 HAROLDS NORTH FIELD DRCEDAR GROVE NC 272319857662178RANDALLMARK DRANDALL SUSAN ANNE PO BOX 107CEDAR GROVE NC 272319857664533ELLIOTTRANDY RAYLMARY BETH712 HAROLDS NORTH FIELD DRCEDAR GROVE NC 272319857664948SCHWENTNERPAMELA CSCHWENTNER WILLIAM F III 715 HAROLDS N FIELD DRCEDAR GROVE NC 272319857665457LOPEZCYNTHIA LOFTIS704 HAROLDS NORTH FIELD DRCEDAR GROVE NC 272319857665937MAESTIFFANY MARIE703 HAROLDS N FIELD DRCEDAR GROVE NC 272319857671040HENRYMICHAEL PATRICKHENRYTERESA KAY727 HAROLDS N FIELD DRCEDAR GROVE NC 2723189019857672482MASSENBURGMALCUM DBROWN CHERYL D15 VESTRIAL LNDURHAMNC 277039857672768BEEEECH WALK CONDO LLC1250 SE MAYNARD RDSTE 102 CARYNC 275119857750879SCHRIFTWALTER A4411 ENO CEMETERY RDCEDAR GROVE NC 2723194129857760674BARNETTBEVERLY HBARNETTJAMES W2205 N BIGELOW STPEORIAIL 616049857760779TERLEPKENNETH DTERLEPKATHRYN E4601 ENO CEMETERY RDCEDAR GROVE NC 2723194149857761062RHEWLOU ANN HICKS4417 ENO CEMETERY RDCEDAR GROVE NC 272319857761530HARRELLSAMUEL PHARRELL MELODY J4511 ENO CEMETARY RDCedar Grove NC 272319857761943MCKNIGHTJAMES ROSS JRMCKNIGHTCELESTE MARIE 4607 ENO CEMETERY RDCEDAR GROVE NC 272319857762227ENO PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHUNKNOWN ADDRESSUNKNOWN XX09857770249ALVAREZLEONARDO OCTAVIO TRUSTEENGUYEN MAI PHUONG TRUSTEE 604 CANOTAGE CTCEDAR GROVE NC 272319857770544FLAMRENEE106 ROCK SPRING CTCARRBORO NC 275109857770714HOLDERFIELDKENNETH CULLEYLASSETER JODI MARIE608 PORTEUR PTCEDAR GROVE NC 272319857771054READYHOUGHEDWARD MREADYHOUGH LESLIE A4611 ENO CEMETARY RDCEDAR GROVE NC 2723194149857771184WARDANN H4615 ENO CEMETARY RDCEDAR GROVE NC 272319857771781MITCHELLNATHANMITCHELL RACHEL604 PORTEUR PTCEDAR GROVE NC 272319857772496POTTERRICHARDPOTTER IVANA M601 CANOTAGE CTCEDAR GROVE NC 272319857773286PEDERSENERIC R600 CANOTAGE CTCEDAR GROVE NC 272319857773666MILLERLLOYD STEPHENMILLERCHRISTINA JARVIS602 PORTEUR PTACEDAR GROVE NC 272319857773890MCMILLANEDWIN W JRMCMILLAN DORIAN600 PORTEUR PTCEDAR GROVE NC 272319857862971DINGJINGZHONGLIUYONGMEI4624 OLD LAKE TRLHILLSBOROUGH NC 2727891789857863173WALKERDONNYWALKER MARY ANN4618 ARROWHEAD TRLHILLSBOROUGH NC 2727882639857863854PAOBING S TRUSTEEPAOMETALONE P TRUSTEE POB 5000 PMB 205RANCHO SANTA FE CA 920679857864300EDGARKARL FWINDSCHILLTAMRA L4600 OLD LAKE TRHILLSBOROUGH NC 272789857864423KEOUGHPATRICK RKEOUGH KATHY M4606 OLD LAKE TRLHILLSBOROUGH NC 2727891789857872089GEIBRONALD L JRGEIBKRISTEN B1420 AINSWORTH BLVDHILLSBOROUGH NC 272789857872156BARLOWCYNTHIA RAY1855 PERIMETER PARK RD WFERNANDINA BEACH FL 32034218
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Administration
(919) 245-2575
(919) 644-3002 (FAX)
www.orangecountync.gov
131 W. Margaret Lane
Suite 201
P. O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
CERTIFICATION OF
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
VARIANCE REQUEST – 4517 ENO CEMETERY RD (PIN 9857-76-0674)
I, Lauren Coffey, Planner I, with Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY that in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.12.6 of the Orange County
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), I have or caused notice of a HEARING for the
project referenced herein as follows:
1.MAILED NOTICES: Notices giving specifics on the review of the Variance
request, contact information, the dates/times/location of the public hearing
including instructions on how the hearing will be conducted.
a.First class mail to all property owners within 1,000 ft. (as identified by Orange
County Tax records) of the subject property on July 10, 2024.
2.SIGNS: Staff posted a sign on the subject parcel indicating the date/time of the
public hearing on July 10, 2024.
WITNESS my hand, this 10th day of July 2024.
Lauren Coffey
Planner I
Orange County Planning and Inspections
219
220
PLANNING and INSPECTIONS
Cy Stober, AICP, Director | cstober@orangecountync.gov | 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 | 919.245.2575
Development Advisory Committee (DAC) Comments
DAC review comments and recommendations do not constitute plan or permit approval for this application
and/or replace any other plans and permits that may be required by other County departments and State
agencies.
Project: BA24-0001 (Barnett Variance)
Location/PIN: 9857760674
Applicant: Sam Harrell
Staff Planner: Patrick Mallett
DAC Meeting Date: 7/11/24
Addressing and
Land Records Date: 7/5/24 Staff:
Britney Pendleton
brpendleton@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2576
1.No comments from addressing team - BP
Attorney’s Office Date: Staff:
James Bryan
jbryan@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2319
No comments received.
Building
Inspections 7/5/2024 Staff:
Michael Rettie
mrettie@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2604
1.Any proposed construction regulated by the NC State Building Codes will require a
construction permit.
DEAPR Date: Staff:
Chris Hirni
chirni@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2514
No comments received.
Environmental
Health Date: 07/08/2024 Staff:
Victoria Hudson
vhudson@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2365
1.No comments to report.
Erosion
Control Date: Staff:
Nate Jacobsen
njacobsen@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2580
No comments received.
Attachment 4 221
Fire and Life
Safety Date: Staff:
Elizabeth Farnan
efarnan@orangecountync.gov
919-245-6153
No comments received.
NCDOT Date: Staff:
David Genwright
digenwright@ncdot.gov
336-570-6833
1. Based on the submittals, the structure change is taking place off NCDOT right of way. It
also not changing the building use by any notable measure so with that and no proposed
utility work, no NCDOT action is required.
Planning Date: Staff:
Patrick Mallett
pmallett@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2577
No comments received.
Solid Waste Date: Staff:
Matt Taylor
mtaylor@orangecountync.gov
919-918-4905
No comments received.
Stormwater
Management Date: 7/9/2024 Staff:
Christopher Sandt
csandt@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2583
1. The project is located in the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay District.
Stormwater Management is required if proposed Land-Disturbing Activity exceeds
21,780 square feet.
Transportation
Services Date: 7/8/2024 Staff:
Darlene Weaver
dweaver@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2002
1. No comment
222
Orange County Government | www.orangecountync.gov | 919.732.8181
Page 1 of 2
PLANNING and INSPECTIONS
Cy Stober, AICP, Director | cstober@orangecountync.gov | 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 | 919.245.2575
MEMORANDUM
TO:Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director Development Services
FROM:Christopher Sandt, PE – County Engineer, Planning & Inspections
DATE:July 17, 2024
CASE: BA24-0001 (Variance Request)
PIN:9857-76-0674
WATERSHED:Upper Eno Critical (Neuse River Basin)
PROJECT:4517 Eno Cemetery Road
SUBJECT:Summary of Findings Regarding Conformance with Orange County
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
This memo summarizes the Development Services Erosion Control and Stormwater
Management Division’s (hereafter, the “Division’s) assessment of the submitted
application for a Variance Request, submitted as the “Bennett Variance” project
(hereafter, the “project”). The project is located within a 0.97-acre parcel at 4517 Eno
Cemetery Road in the Cedar Grove township of Orange County, North Carolina.
The request proposes development consisting of:
Minor addition to an existing non-compliant residential structure located within the
150-foot reservoir buffer of Lake Orange
The Staff comments contained herein are based upon a required Variance Application
and supporting information as submitted to Orange County on July 1, 2024. These
findings should not be interpreted as the Division’s final analysis/approval of the proposed
development. Upon zoning approval, the proposed development would then be required
to submit a Land Disturbing Permit (LDP), if applicable, which would formally review and
approve development activity consistent with the Site Plan.
Conclusion:
The Division has No Objections to the approval of the Variance Request so long as: no
new structures are constructed any closer to the shoreline of Lake Orange than the
existing non-compliant structure; a complete Buffer Use Authorization (BUA) application
is submitted for review, processing and approval; and, a complete LDP application and
supporting plans and calculationsare submitted for review, processing, and approval prior
Page 2 of 2
to commencement of on-site Land-Disturbing Activity – if applicable. As the project
progresses, additional field observations, and/or permitting by others (e.g., US Army
Corps of Engineers, NC Department of Environmental Quality, NC Department of
Transportation, etc.), additional buffers, setbacks, and/or additional Orange County
review and permitting may apply beyond the proposed development as shown with this
Variance Request.
___________________________ _______________
Christopher Sandt, PE Date
Christopher J. Sandt, P.E.
Digitally signed by Christopher J. Sandt, P.E.
DN: cn=Christopher J. Sandt, P.E., o=Orange County, North Carolina,
ou=Engineering Division, email=csandt@orangecountync.gov, c=US
Date: 2024.07.17 11:23:45 -04'00'
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cy Stober, AICP – Director, Planning & Inspections Department
FROM: Victoria Hudson – Orange County Environmental Health Division
CC: Patrick Mallett – Deputy Director Development Services
DATE: July 18, 2024
CASE: BA24-0001
PIN: 9857760674
WATERSHED: Upper Eno Critical
PROJECT: That a variance to the stream/floodplain/reservoir buffer area
requirement .
SUBJECT: Summary of Plan Review by Orange County Environmental
Health Division
This memo summarizes the summarizes the findings of an Orange County
Environmental Health plan review of the application for a R-1 amendment, submitted
as the “Barnette Variance” project (hereafter, the “project”). The project is located
within .97 acres of property at 4517 Eno Cemetery Rd, Cedar Grove. The request
proposes development consisting of:
• Application is for a variance to the stream/floodplain/reservoir buffer
area requirement be granted to allow for the construction of a modest
addition to the existing "non compliant" structure, at approx. 75 ft from
the water body within the reservoir buffer (150 ft) setback area.
The Staff comments contained herein are based upon the submittal of a Zoning
Report, dated May 7, 2024 and available for review on July 3, 2024. These findings
should not be interpreted as the Division’s final analysis/approval of the proposed
development.
Environmental Health Conditions
At this time, no application(s) have been received. Application(s) and fees
required for permitting.
Improvement Permit(s) shall only be issued upon presentation of the exact
structure to be constructed.
Permit(s) must be issued by the Orange County Health Department prior to any
alteration of the lot(s).
Permit conditions may apply.
X Existing EH records are attached.
Existing well and/or septic systems will be impacted.
Contact Public Water Supply for on-site water supply.
Other:
Conclusion:
EH has no objections to the approval of the zoning request so long as the above list
is addressed to the Orange County Health Department for processing, and
issuance of Permits. This designation is not an Improvement Permit or Well Permit
and not approval for a septic system or on -site water supply. Additional field
observations and/or permitting by others may apply beyond the proposed
development as shown with this request. Please direct any questions or requests for
Laws, Rules, and policy to ehapplications@orangecountync.gov.
07-18-2024
Victoria Hudson, MPA, REHS Date
Or designee
VARIANCE REQUEST
CASE BA24-0001
4517 Eno Cemetery Road
(PIN: 9857-76-0674)
APPLICANT PROPOSED
FINDINGS ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
As permitted under Section 2.10 Variances of the Orange County Unified Development
Ordinance, the Board of Adjustment is authorized to modify or vary regulations of the UDO
when strict compliance with the regulation or standard would result in unnecessary hardships
upon the subject property.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.10.4 of the UDO, the BOA may approve a
variance in cases where unnecessary hardships would result from carrying out the strict letter of
the UDO, when substantial evidence in the official record of the application supports all of the
following findings:
(A)Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the Ordinance. It
shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no
reasonable use can be made of the property.
(B)The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as
location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as
well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood
or general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance.
(C)The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property
owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist
that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created
hardship.
(D)The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the
Ordinance, such that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved.
Per Section 2.10.9 of the UDO, the Board of Adjustment is not empowered to grant a variance
without an affirmative finding of fact supported by substantial evidence in the record of the
proceedings before the Board. The Board may impose appropriate conditions provided same
are reasonable related to the variance request.
Per Section 2.12.4 of the UDO the affirmative vote of four of the members of the Board shall be
necessary to effect any variation of the Ordinance.
In accordance with Section 2.10.9 of the UDO what follows in the Planning Director’s
assessment of the application and recommended disposition of the request consistent with the
information contained therein.
225Attachment 5
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE BOA
FINDINGS
In accordance with Section 2.10.4 of the UDO, the Board of Adjustment shall also consider the following before
the application for a VARIANCE can be approved.
Unnecessary hardship would result
from the strict application of the
Ordinance. It shall not be
necessary to demonstrate that, in
the absence of the variance, no
reasonable use can be made of the
property.
Sec 2.10.4 (A) Application package
The hardship results from
conditions that are peculiar to the
property, such as location, size, or
topography. Hardships resulting
from personal circumstances, as
well as hardships resulting from
conditions that are common to the
neighborhood or general public,
may not be the basis for granting a
variance.
Sec 2.10.4 (B) Application package
The hardship did not result from
actions taken by the applicant or
the property owner. The act of
purchasing property with
knowledge that circumstances exist
that may justify the granting of a
variance shall not be regarded as a
self-created hardship.
Sec 2.10.4 (C) Application package
The requested variance is
consistent with the spirit, purpose,
and intent of the Ordinance, such
that public safety is secured and
substantial justice is achieved.
Sec 2.10.4 (D) Application package
After holding a duly advertised public hearing, the Board voted ____ to __________ the
variance request as submitted by the Applicant.
_______________________________________ __________________
Chair Orange County Board of Adjustment Date
226